<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Cuerpo en alfa";
panose-1:2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Roboto;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-tab-span
{mso-style-name:apple-tab-span;}
span.EstiloCorreo19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:70.85pt 3.0cm 70.85pt 3.0cm;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=ES link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Owen, all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>As you know, most of us aren’t native English speakers, so it is easy that we can make mistakes. However, those mistakes can be corrected, as we did in previous proposals, at the PPM, or even during the last-call if they reach consensus. So, if we all agree on your suggestions regarding 5.7, I will’ve no problem on that. Could the staff, before the PPM, tell us if this alternative wording still has for them the same interpretation, and consequently it is a clear editorial change?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regarding 5.7.1, in our previous discussion (<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013837.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013837.html</a>), we already agreed that this paragraph is not needed, but it was requested by the staff to make it clearer. In other RIRs there is nothing like that text. It doesn’t harm to have it. Today, M&A is an internal procedure. If tomorrow the community decides that it must be a policy, then we just need to include in that policy proposal the removal of that text. In fact, once we resolve the transfers, I plan to resubmit my proposal for M&A.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regarding 5.7.2.2/3, the 16 months are considered using an existing timing in the CPM section 5.4.5, times 2. I think it is a very simple way to agree on that, otherwise, each community member will have a different view and we will not be able to reach consensus. I don’t think it is so important and if the community believes that it need to be amended, we could make it after the proposal reach consensus, considering that the implementation of such policy will typically take 1 year and the timing is not critical for the implementation time (is just a parameter in the scripts).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regarding 5.7.4, most of the text on this section is more an example that anything else, because the other 4 RIRs already have a cooperation system to exchange this information and make it public, so as said in the policy text “This doesn’t exclude the publication of the same or other information as a result of the operating agreement among the RIRs.”.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regarding 5.7.5, the text has been amended as we discussed in the previous round and with the inputs from the staff. I’m not going to discuss with you “personal views” (which I also have my owns and not necessarily in favor of recent Board actions) vs this proposal text. If we believe that things are broken, we shall address that in other places, not in every single proposal, because *<b>anything</b>* in the PCM can be used as weapon against the members and community, if the staff/board decides so, and this is consequently not a problem for any specific policy text, it is a wider organization issue. If you remove 5.7.5, following the RSA, the staff still can do *<b>exactly the same</b>* and even more, and can *<b>deny</b>* the transfers and reclaim the resources because the justification of the need is no longer there. As such, this will be even more against the members and the community than keeping 5.7.5.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regarding 5.7.6, I agree with you, but the staff is suggesting that it adds clarity as I just explained in my previous email. I don’t think it harms so I will say let’s keep it.<o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Jordi<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>@jordipalet<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:12.0pt;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>El 10/11/21 18:51, "Owen DeLong via RPD" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> escribió:<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>This version has the following problems;<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Proposal:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>5.7 <span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Roboto;color:#FF6600'>This policy applies to any entity with a justified need for IPv4 resources (recipients) and entities with IPv4 resources which no longer need (sources).</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:3.75pt;margin-left:35.4pt;box-sizing: border-box;caret-color: rgb(117, 117, 117)'><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Roboto;color:#FF6600'>The resources to be transferred must be from an existing Resource Holder (including Legacy Resource Holders) in the AFRINIC service region/other RIRs.</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Roboto;color:#757575'><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Correction:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>5.7 This policy applies to any entity with a justified need for IPv4 resources (recipient) and any entity with IPv4 resources which are no longer needed (source).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>The resources to be transferred must be from an existing Resource Holder (including Legacy Resource Holders). At least one of the parties (source or recipient) must be an AFRINIC resource holder or be eligible to become an AFRINIC resource holder as a result of the transfer (per 5.7.3.1, et. al.).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Reasoning:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>First, the syntax of the first sentence was awkward and had an invalid mix of singular and plural. Grammatical and syntax correction, but original meaning preserved.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Second, the sentence was awkwardly worded and did not achieve what I believe to be the author’s true intent.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Proposal 5.7.1 …M&A not covered…<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Correction:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>instead of simply stating that M&A transactions are not covered by the policy, reference should be made to the policy under which they are covered. If there is no such policy, then the exception should be removed from this policy.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Reasoning:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>M&A transactions occur, both inter and intra-RIR. That is simply the current reality. Prohibiting them from being recognized puts policy out of step with reality and guarantees inaccurate registration information.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Proposal 5.7.2.2 …Not less than 16 months…<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>16 months seems a very arbitrary period of time (1 1/3 years). Suggest that this should be modified to 12, 18, or 24 months. Suggest a similar change to 5.7.2.3 as well.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Personally, I would favor 24 months, with 18 as my second choice.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Proposal 5.7.4: Suggest adding the following to the required information list:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Source ORG-ID<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><span class=apple-tab-span> </span>Recipient ORG-ID<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>I continue to object to 5.7.5. In the situation with an ethical RIR, I agree this provision would not be a problem. However, with the current crew of shake down artists in control of the AFRINIC management and board where we have seen made up interpretations of the bylaws and the CPM used in an effort to extort money from members, this provision is perfectly positioned to be weaponized in order to deny legitimate resource holders the ability to protect their rights.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Proposal Section 5.7.6 is non-operative and has no effect. Therefore, it should be stricken IMHO.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>Owen<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:35.4pt'>_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <o:p></o:p></p></div><br>**********************************************<br>
IPv4 is over<br>
Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
http://www.theipv6company.com<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>
</body></html>