Hello Fernando,<div>please find below my comments in line.<br><br>On Thursday, September 24, 2020, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>+1</p>
<p>It is so obvious how much damage not having a minimum wait time
can make to the resources in the region versus the 'benefits' that
I find it really hard to understand how people keep defending not
having any waiting period and let things loose. <br>
</p></div></blockquote><div>I think the effect of not having a minimum waiting time can be negated by the justication of the need. Having a large waiting time can starve processes of resources as justified by various scheduling and allocation algorithms.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>I think it is enough the fraud cases regarding resources,
specially the one that happened in the region to say having these
breaks is something positive to majority of organizations and make
sure resources go to those who really justify them to get people
connected to the internet, not just to speculate from them.</p></div></blockquote><div> the current cases of fraud does not eliminate the need for this proposal. The current cases of fraud also exist under the nose of an existing Intra-RIR proposal. The fact that you have the police force does not mean they will no longer be thieves.</div><div>Secondly I think the proposal caters for need justification which was a major concern in Angola.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 24/09/2020 08:14, JORDI PALET
MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Hi Ekaterina,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">El 24/9/20
12:25, "Ekaterina Kalugina" <<a href="mailto:kay.k.prof@gmail.com" target="_blank">kay.k.prof@gmail.com</a>>
escribió:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Hey everyone,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">@JORDI PALET MARTINEZ</a> <span style="font-size:12.0pt">you said, and I quote:</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">>"An ISP will not need to
return even a /22 because he loses 1.024 customers as
he can get them back, this is very common customer
churn in a matter of weeks (even days or hours for big
ISPs)."<br>
<br>
In this case, ISP would not need to bother with
resource transfer.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">[Jordi] At the beginning of the transfers
in other regions, I was *<b>against</b>* that. In my
opinion when operators don’t need the resources, they
should return them back to the RIR. BUT we all know,
that people is not so honest, and this will only
happen in an utopic and idealistic world and moreover,
this will still need some “agreement” between
different RIRs to allow those resources that are
returned to be “transferred” among RIRs. Due to facts,
afterwards I realized that this is a need for the
global community and that’s why I agreed with those
policies, and even started to work on them as an
author. <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
<br>
However, I believe a situation may occur when the ISP
is unable to distribute the allocated resources for
whatever reason. </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Even if we cannot predict the
reason we must still account for such contingency.
And, in such case, it does not make sense to block
these resources for 12 months from being transferred
to a place where they are actually needed. This would
be detrimental to everyone involved. <br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">[Jordi] I don’t agree. A transfer may
take several weeks or even months. It depends on many
factors, like the justification time among the RIRs,
providing documents, etc. Even if you discover that in
month 3 after you have received a /22, you no longer
need it (which I doubt it can be true), this means
that the resources will be “unused” during other 6-7
months. I could agree that the hold time is just 6-8
months instead of 12, but non zero is difficult,
because the cost of “not-being-able to use those
resources” for any number of providers is actually *<b>lower</b>*
than the cost of a single recovery case!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
In regard to your statement:<br>
"However, a “bad guy” will easily use that as an
excuse to transfer the resources in days or weeks."<br>
</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Like Anthony and
Lucilla mentioned before, such action would be a clear
act of fraud.I do not see any reason why anyone would
willingly commit such a violation. "Bad guys" are not
stupid, and if someone wants to take an advantage of
AFRINIC, they will, and I do not think the 12 months
cap would prevent that in any way. <br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">[Jordi] Just look at the histories of
frauds in all the RIRs! This is real life. Holding the
resources for 12 months, breaks their business model.
It makes sense because it is quick money and you can
do it with a very tiny fraction of money, once and
again and again, rotating among different RIRs, etc.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
The only thing it would achieve, in my view, is slow
down the flow of resources and create stagnations that
could be more costly than any retrieval procedures in
case of fraud.<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">[Jordi] To be objective, we will need to
get statistics of “speed” of transfers among different
RIRs, number of frauds or fraud attempts, etc., etc.,
etc. and many of those details probably are sensitive
and the RIRs will not recognize that, even if
anonymized. There have been fraud cases in RIPE, which
everybody knows by word of mouth, but it has never
published …<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"><br>
But of course, staff assessment is needed to have full
clarity of this issue.</span><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span lang="EN-US"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Best,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kay</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">On Thu, Sep
24, 2020 at 9:05 AM Gaby Giner <<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com" target="_blank">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Hello
guys,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">This
discussion is very interesting seeing that it deals
with the most probable or likely outcome with those
that would want to take advantage of the system. We
can only wish that the clients would be completely
honest with their need, but of course, if they are
inclined to lie, there is no mechanism that would stop
them from doing so. I would suggest that the proposal
include a means or a way to authenticate the need but
that would be more trouble than it is worth and would
not be entirely foolproof. <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Since we
are dealing with finite and scarce resources, it's
important that the way they are doled out should be
systematic and measured and not just "I need this. I
need this, give me this". Having said that, I think
having a time limit would also cause traffic for the
"need". Regardless, as Lucilla said, these are
hypothetical scenarios and questions but they may be
worth getting into.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">I'm
interested in what the staff/authors would have to say
on this matter.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">Thanks,
Gaby.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt">On Thu,
Sep 24, 2020, 2:59 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD,
<<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">I mean a
non-realistic situation. An ISP will not need to
return even a /22 because he loses 1.024
customers as he can get them back, this is very
common customer churn in a matter of weeks (even
days or hours for big ISPs).</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">However, a
“bad guy” will easily use that as an excuse to
transfer the resources in days or weeks.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Jordi</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">@jordipalet</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:35.4pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt">El
24/9/20 8:29, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD"
<<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
escribió:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Exactly,
if you really have that situation you can return
them and be fair.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Anyway,
the example that I’ve presented is a
non-realistic suggestion. It is not frequent
that an operator loses customers in such way. It
is just the perfect excuse for “bad guys” to get
resources and resell them.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Remember
also that in the actual exhaustion phase, they
can only get a maximum of a /22.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Jordi</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">@jordipalet</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:70.8pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">El
24/9/20 4:03, "Fernando Frediani" <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
escribió:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">We can make in
another way: if someone justifies and receives
resources from AfriNic but afterwards realizes
something changed and doesn't need those addresses
anymore it must give the addresses back to AfriNic
so it can re-distribute it in the most fair way to
any other organization who goes though the same
justification process. Why is it difficult to
think about this fairness with all others in the
region ?<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">Fernando<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">On
23/09/2020 22:22, lucilla fornaro wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">Hello
everyone,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">I
agree with what concerns the problem of
the time limit. Companies will refrain
from such behavior because it is too risky
and indicative of possible fraud.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">Jordi,
Considering your example related to the
customers' loss, I think that it is
adverse for the operator to wait 12 months
before transferring the addresses. What is
the point in holding addresses that they
will not be able to use and deprive
someone else of further resources? What if
they don’t get new customers? What if they
lose even more customers? Too many
hypothetical questions, that is why I
believe it is more straightforward and
more convenient for everyone to facilitate
the process.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">I
agree that recovery processes are
expensive and time-consuming, but we can
say the same for those unused resources.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">As
well as you, I would like to know the
staff’s view on this.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">Lucilla <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt">Il
giorno mer 23 set 2020 alle ore 21:14 JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>
ha scritto:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US">Hi
Anthony,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I think *<b>somehow</b>*
you’re right, clearly I overlooked
this.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">We don’t need a time
limit to transfer resrources because
that will be a demonstration of the
“the need was not justified”.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">However, the problem of
this approach is that if it happens,
the staff *<b>will need to start a
recovery process</b>* which is
long, costly and a big trouble.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">What happens if the *<b>false</b>*
justification for the transfer is: I
had the need 6 months ago, but then
I lost customers and now I don’t
need anymore the space, so I’m
transfering it.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">What happens if the
same operator, repeat that after
another 6 months? There are ways to
one and again *<b>justify the need</b>*
and it is, instead, very dificult
for the staff to act on the RSA for
recovery and member closure in those
cases.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">On the other way
around, what is the “objection” if
we have that hold time? I can only
see one: If the example above (I
lost customers) happens, the
operator need to wait until month 12
before transfering the addresses. Is
that really so bad? Or it is good
because he may get new customers
again?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I think the trade-off
is to have a good balance and ensure
that we avoid this happening and
requiring the staff to invest
resources in an investigation and
recovery.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Could the staff provide
a view on this?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regarding the legacy.
Yes, ARIN and RIPE don’t have it (I
think APNIC has it, LACNIC
definitively has it). AFRINIC has it
right now. We are removing a very
good thing.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Why it is so good?
Because legacy holders aren’t bound
to the RIRs RSAs, so that’s
extremely bad for the overall
community. They don’t pay for *<b>services</b>*
that all the RIRs are doing for
them, so all the members are
covering that part of the cost.
They’re not bound to RIR policies,
so they can break the rules of the
community all the time and we have
no way to react on that.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">I don’t agree on the
point of the disputed resources,
I’ve the feeling that somehow in the
process of editing the v2, it was
removed by mistake and we should
have it back. The difference in
between rightful holder and having a
dispute, is depending on who is
saying that, in case of a dispute. I
will love also to have the staff
opinion on that.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">As well, can the impact
analysis be made clear? Is that all
fine for the staff after having
checked with authors each point?</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Please, let’s make this
happen!</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">Jordi</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US">@jordipalet</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:106.2pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt" lang="EN-US"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt">El
21/9/20 18:10, "Anthony Ubah" <<a href="mailto:ubah.tonyiyke@gmail.com" target="_blank">ubah.tonyiyke@gmail.com</a>>
escribió:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt">Hello
Jordi,<br>
<br>
We can sight an instance with APNIC
as a case study. APNIC has a
transfer policy that doesn’t have a
time limit for retransferring
resources and time proves to us that
it works.<br>
<br>
According to APNIC, the act of
buying space and reselling it right
after the purchase seems to be
highly unlikely because of two
reasons.<br>
<br>
First of all, most companies buy
space for their own use, and hence a
commodity trading type of business
doesn’t exist in the IP space
involved.<br>
<br>
Secondly, since the buyer is
required to justify the need of a
12-month usage, if he/she engages in
an activity such as buying the space
and then reselling it right after,
this indicative of fraud because it
contravenes the “NEED” which is a
prerequisite for receiving such
space. This simply implies that the
so-called “NEED” which they provided
was fake. Hence, companies will
refrain from engaging in such
behaviour.<br>
<br>
As for the legacy transfer, I
believe both ARIN and RIPE have the
cases of a transferred legacy space
remained as a legacy. APNIC may be
different, but I think this is just
a different sort of opinion and
should not be read as an objection.
Also, what matters the most is that
if we follow ARIN, we can receive
space from them. Definitely this is
a significant advantage.<br>
<br>
As for the disputed resources, since
AFRINIC have to know who the
rightful holder of the spaces are
before transferring them. I don’t
think this would be a concern
because AFRINIC is not able to
initiate a transfer for space that
is under dispute. However, this is a
legal matter and is already out of
the scope of the policy.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt;line-height:150%"><b><span style="font-size:9.5pt;line-height:150%;font-family:"Garamond",serif">Anthony
Ubah</span></b><u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt;line-height:150%"><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#999999">E-mail: </span><a href="mailto:anthony.ubah@gloworld.com" target="_blank"><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif">anthony.ubah@goldspine.com</span></a><span style="font-family:"Garamond",serif;color:#999999">.ng</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt"> <u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt">On
Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:00 AM <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>>
wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p style="margin-left:141.6pt">Send
RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via
the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with
subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing
the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your
Subject line so it is more
specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD
digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT02 -
Resource Transfer Policy<br>
(JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)<br>
2. Re: Abuse Contact Policy
(JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<wbr>------------------------------<wbr>----------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 10:34:13
+0200<br>
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
To: rpd List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: [rpd]
AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT02 -
Resource Transfer Policy<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:8873E491-A0A7-4506-A490-13C6B6E67A7D@consulintel.es" target="_blank">8873E491-A0A7-4506-A490-<wbr>13C6B6E67A7D@consulintel.es</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi all,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I will be happy to support this
proposal and withdraw my own one,
but *before* I?ve some questions
about this decision that need to
be addressed first (see below,
in-line).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
10. Resource Transfer Policy<br>
<br>
This proposal aims to introduce
Inter RIR transfer. However, it
has the following opposition <br>
<br>
a. Issues with
Legacy holder transfer is
potentially considered
none-reciprocal by ARIN<br>
<br>
b. Potential
abuse of AFRINIC free pool without
the time limit of receiving an
allocation from AFRINIC.<br>
<br>
Chairs Decision: The proposal is
the least contested of all the 3
competing proposals. However
because of the community?s desire
and clear expression for the need
for an Inter RIR transfer, we, the
Co-chairs, believe that in the
interest of the community we
should focus on a proposal rather
than several similar ones. This
desire was clearly expressed at
the AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola.
Therefore, We suggest that the
authors of this proposal make the
following amendments: <br>
<br>
? 5.7.3.2 Source entities
are not eligible to receive
further IPv4 allocations or
assignments from AFRINIC for 12
months period after the transfer.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[Jordi] This is perfect, and in
fact is what I?ve. Just different
timing to match phase 2 window x
2, but not a big issue. However,
we are missing something that was
also objected by the community and
I think is key to avoid abuse.
Actual text in the CPM ?5.7.3.3
Source entities must not have
received a transfer, allocation,
or assignment of IPv4 number
resources from AFRINIC for the 12
months prior to the approval of
transfer request. This restriction
excludes mergers and acquisitions
transfers.?. This is no longer
considered by this proposal, and
in my opinion it is a MUST.
Doesn?t make any sense that
someone is getting resources from
AFRINIC and being able to transfer
them immediately! Can please the
chairs also address this point.<br>
<br>
[Jordi] Can the staff explain the
consequences from their
perspective if we don?t have such
text or something similar? Is even
possible that the board will not
ratify the policy because that,
and we are wasting a previous
time?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
? 5.7.4.3. Transferred
legacy resources will still be
regarded as legacy resources.<br>
<br>
[Jordi] This is also a major
issue. I?m not sure if the chairs
have understood what was the point
about lack of reciprocity. We
can?t enforce ARIN to accept that
outgoing (to ARIN from AFRINIC)
resources will no longer be
legacy. However the actual CPM
states ?5.7.4.3 Transferred IPv4
legacy resources will no longer be
regarded as legacy resources.?. We
must keep that, because we should
avoid legacy resources to keep
being legacy as much as possible,
because they are NOT BIND to the
CPM. If we accept the chairs
proposal, we are going *backwards*
not forward and we may be creating
a discrimination with already done
transfers within AFRINIC
(Intra-RIR, according to the
current policy). The right text
here must be ?Transferred incoming
or within AFRINIC IPv4 legacy
resources will no longer be
regarded as legacy resources?.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
[Jordi] Finally, there were
several severe comments from the
staff that need to be addressed.
For example, resources under
dispute. That?s a big issue! There
are a few others. I think here we
need to see if the staff got
everything clear from the authors
inputs and if the policy can be
implemented or there will be open
questions that will not allow to
be a functional policy and again,
even disallow the board to ratify
it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Chairs Decision: Provided that the
above are amended, the decisions
is Rough Consensus is achieved
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Jordi<br>
<br>
@jordipalet<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
******************************<wbr>****************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet
?<br>
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
The IPv6 Company<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
-------------- next part
--------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200921/81bf3b81/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/<wbr>pipermail/rpd/attachments/<wbr>20200921/81bf3b81/attachment-<wbr>0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 11:00:01
+0200<br>
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Abuse Contact
Policy<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:491C1297-8C2D-4939-B339-EDAA80334B24@consulintel.es" target="_blank">491C1297-8C2D-4939-B339-<wbr>EDAA80334B24@consulintel.es</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi Lamiaa,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
8.3 and 8.4 are making sure that
you respond to an abuse case,
*not* that you *recognize* it as
an abuse. It is your choice to
tell the ?victim ISP?, look for me
this is not an abuse, so I will
not do anything about it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
AFRINIC can?t verify this
automatically, because it doesn?t
make sense that AFRINIC is
?sending? fake abuse reports to
see if they get a response.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
AFRINIC can only send an email for
the validation of the mailbox. It
is an existing mailbox? I?m
getting a response (for example,
have they, once I send the
validation email, clicked the link
or went into MyAfrinic to input
the validation code?).<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
8.4 also states the timing for the
validation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
8.5 is the validation itself, so I
guess, according to your response,
that you?re ok with this specific
point. If we don?t have it,
AFRINIC can?t do a periodic
validation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
8.6. is making sure that you don?t
try to fake the validation. For
instance, you could respond only
to AFRINIC validations and then
discard all the other emails. If
we don?t have that, the policy may
become useless. Note also that in
fact, if you follow the RSA,
*anyone* could escalate *any* lack
of CPM compliance. So this is
making sure that the policy text
is honest and transparent.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Or do you prefer to be filtered
because you don?t respond?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Clearly this proposal is not
asking AFRINIC to be a police. Is
only making sure that the parties
*can talk*. Again: AFRINIC will
not be involved in ?how you handle
the case?, but I least you should
be able to be contacted and
respond.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
See this example:<br>
<br>
If AK or Moses customers are
sending me spam, or trying to
intrude my network, and they have
abuse contacts, I will be able to
complain to them. Then we have two
cases:<br>
<br>
1. Moses responds to me and say
?you?re right, this is against our
AUP? (is irrelevant what the law
in Moses country say, it is the
contract with customers what says
what is allowed or not). Let?s fix
it. I will warn the customer, and
if they don?t stop, we will filter
their email port, or even cancel
the contract (just examples, only
Moses can decide what they do).<br>
<br>
2. AK instead doesn?t care, or
the mailbox is full or bouncing
emails or respond ?sorry in our
network we allow that?. Then I can
take my own decision, filter only
that IP address, or the complete
AK network. I can even see if this
is allowed in his country and take
legal actions (which usually you
don?t do because is costly and
more of the regulations don?t know
?anything? about abuse or even
Internet!).<br>
<br>
AFRINIC will not take any measure
if AK decides that is not an
abuse. It is our problem not
AFRINIC problem. However, if the
email is bouncing, AFRINIC will
revalidate the abuse-c and make
sure that it works.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Is like a phone book. You have
there the phones and they must be
correct, or you need to update
them every ?n? months. The phone
book doesn?t tell the purpose of
each phone. If you don?t want to
accept calls related to ?ordering
pizzas?, you tell the caller ?this
number is not for that?, but at
least you must pick up the phone
otherwise, you don?t know if it is
somebody calling by error or
someone that you really want to
talk. And this is true for *every*
whois contact.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Can you let us know how do you
handle it in the networks that you
operate?<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Jordi<br>
<br>
@jordipalet<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
El 21/9/20 10:00, "Lamiaa Chnayti"
<<a href="mailto:lamiaachnayti@gmail.com" target="_blank">lamiaachnayti@gmail.com</a>>
escribi?:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Fernando, <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think you are very confused. I
never said I have a problem with
people completing their
registration. Keep
registration---having an abuse
contact Email in the whois, just
like tech contact or admin
contact--I am perfectly fine with
it, and I think the current policy
achieves 99% it, if you want to
add this contact as mandatory
field I am fine with it as well.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
But the problem of this policy in
8.3-8.6, is that it requires
AFRINIC to monitor the members HOW
to manage their abuse mailbox down
to the subject line, and that is
out of the scope of AFRINIC, just
read my last email with logic in
mind and you will understand. I
suggest this policy should be very
simple, adding one line to the
current policy-- abuse contact is
mandatory, and it's done,
everything else should be deleted.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
And again, you are trying to use
AFRINIC for something that is not
in its scope, how someone manages
their mailbox is not in the scope
of AFRINIC, it is like you go to
your local church to ask them to
arrest your neighbour who plays
loud music at night when you
should go to police instead. Same
thing for someone running an
abusive network, as many already
stated, it is up to a local Jury
to decide if it is simply at an
annoying level or a criminal
offense, but either way please do
go to your local police to report
it.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
As for the internet, we never tell
you how to behave--you are
entirely at your rights in the
internet to behave abusively, but
it is also entirely in everyone's
rights to block you, that's how
de-centralizing works, no central
governing, everyone plays nice
because that's the only way for
everyone else to play with you,
and this policy here asks AFRINIC
to act like a central government
even down to manage people's
mailbox's subject line and that is
way beyond what internet meant to
be.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Lamiaa<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Le dim. 20 sept. 2020 ? 23:42,
Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
a ?crit :<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 19/09/2020 13:19, Lamiaa
Chnayti wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<clip><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
How is it in the scope of AFRINIC
to decide how I manage my abuse
mailbox? If I want to reply only
to a specific subject line of my
abuse box, it is entirely in my
right to do. Even if I don't want
to reply at the abuse mailbox at
all, that is my right to do so and
if I think no action in my network
would be considered abuse
(although unlikely), but it is
still from the internet community
point of view, entirely in my
right to do so. You might choose
to block me as a network, but that
is also your right. <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The reason internet is called
INTER-NET is because of its
decentralized nature, you have to
play nice for others to play with
you, but this community never
forces anyone to play nice, it is
not in the scope of AFRINIC to
decide how members reply to their
abuse mailbox, so if 8.3,8.4, 8.5
and 8.6 are deleted in its
entirety, I might consider
supporting it. Also Jordi, I feel
you always have this central
management type of thinking, and
that is so not internet.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
It is not in the scope of any RIR
how anyone manage people's<br>
<br>
mailboxes.<br>
<br>
<br>
Nobody exists alone in the
Internet. If an organization<br>
<br>
hypothetically doesn't care at all
and refuses to respond to abuse<br>
<br>
emails it probably should re-think
its existence in the Internet<br>
<br>
</p></blockquote></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br><br>-- <br>Kind regards, <p>Paschal.<br></p>