<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="">Hi Frank<div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 29 Jun 2021, at 12:08, Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" class="">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>> wrote:</div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="">In many countries legal frameworks the lack of a transfer policy<br class="">allowing registrants to monetize the transfer of their registrations<br class="">could be considered either restraint of trade or an<br class="">anti-trust/anti-competitive matter.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">the fact is that these numbers should be unique and centrally managed.<br class="">These anti-trust lawyers can send a better proposal for managing them.<br class=""><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I think the comment came from the perspective of someone whose experience is largely in an RIR hosted in a country and where that same country accounts for the majority of members and resource utilisation. That means that national law (including anti-trust law) would be applicable for that RIR.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It may also be influenced by actions in another continent where there is a continental political union that has resulted in a continental competition oversight authority working with national competition regulators and which has supra-national powers. That means that the actions of that RIR will be subject to a complex regime of national and supra-national law, including competition law.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>However it ignores the realities of the competition law regime in Africa and the fact that the AU does not have a supra-national competition law or competition authority. IMHO even a cross-border authority like the COMESA competition commission has a restricted mandate and lacks the authority to review issues such as a transfer policy.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>It is conceivable that the <span style="caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 36); color: rgb(32, 33, 36); font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">AfCFTA will eventually lead to such an environment - but for now it is absent.</span></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 36); color: rgb(32, 33, 36); font-family: arial, sans-serif; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class=""><br class=""></span></div><div><font color="#202124" face="arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">So any reference to “anti-trust” (a largely American </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 36);" class="">reference), anti-competitive or an unlawful restraint of trade should be taken with a large bag of salt.</span></font></div><div><font color="#202124" face="arial, sans-serif" class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(32, 33, 36);" class=""><br class=""></span></font></div><div><font color="#202124" face="arial, sans-serif" class="">This does not mean I endorse the contrary position - but I do have an issue with fear mongering and factual inaccuracies being perpetuated. I hope that these comments are being advanced due to ignorance or experience in a different jurisdiction. I truly hope that they are not being inserted with the intent to deceive or manipulate.</font></div><div><font color="#202124" face="arial, sans-serif" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div><font color="#202124" face="arial, sans-serif" class="">Mike</font></div></div></div></body></html>