<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Oct 25, 2025, at 00:39, Jaco Kroon <jaco@uls.co.za> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hi,</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2025/10/24 17:34, Owen DeLong via
RPD wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Oct 24, 2025, at 08:06, Fernando
Frediani <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"><fhfrediani@gmail.com></a> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:439CA1AB-5956-4048-8831-5A244AB36F12@delong.com">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/24/2025 11:02 AM, Andrew
Alston wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAD52VQ26pj=DCPyTM+LaC_opvz3cJ1Y8gceKOuFEvn_GevZdoA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">You also have to remember, that space
allocated prior to soft-landing has no geographic
restrictions on where it can be used - geographic
restrictions only applied to space allocated under soft
landing. </div>
</blockquote>
<p>Don't remember of this being like that. Resources
registered in AfriNic region, regardless of when they were
assigned are to be used majority within the region for
Africa Internet development and AfriNic staff already made
that clear in the past. There would be no sense to get
resources from AfriNic and be able to freely use outside the
region. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>If they said that, they were mistaken. Reread the policy
documents and the bylaws. No such requirement exists in the
actual written rules. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It may cause you moral outrage or feel wrong to you, but it
is not against the actual written rules. Multiple attempts to
change that have failed to gain consensus over the years. The
record is pretty clear. </div>
</blockquote>
<p>That's debatable, but I do believe Fernando isn't wrong, from our
own RSA pre-dating a LOT of the current outrage and unhappiness
and debate and court proceedings etc etc .... so this may throw
further fuel, but let's state for the record what's in the
contracts around the points of contention I can think of right
now. Please keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, so the usual caveats
and disclaimers apply here. This is my own layman's reading of
the relevant sections.<br>
<br>
<b>Leasing of IP space</b>:</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I haven’t mentioned leasing once in this conversation. That was Fernando’s conjecture on my statement. I’m talking strictly about whether resources are required to be used in-region or not. <div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<p><b>Enforcing of new rules retrospectively</b>:</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div>All well and good, but the new rules as written (in the soft landing policy) make it clear that the new rule applies only to space issued after it was triggered and is not retroactive. </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<p>As such, things *can* be fixed retroactively. But it also permits
abuse of power, so it's a powerful clause that could potentially
be abused by those in the Board specifically (Afrinic does NOT
have the power to unilaterally change the agreement unless
mandated by the board - is my reading of the above).<br></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Correct. To the best of my knowledge, no such amendment has been published. <br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>
</p>
<p><b>In region vs out-of-region use</b>:</p>
<p>"1 Preamble<br>
(a) AFRINIC, the African Network Information Center is the
regional Internet registry for Africa and the Indian Ocean region
and is:<br>
(i) the entity accredited by ICANN under the ICP-2 policy 2
(Resolution 05.25 of May 2005) to assign Internet number resources
<b>within</b> the region;"<br></p></div></blockquote><div>That applies primarily to where the request or has nexus and has virtually no other meaning about where resources are utilized. Every RIR has examples of entities using resources registered within their registry that are used legitimately by regions legitimately entitled to obtain resources there but deploying them in other regions. </div><div><br></div><div>Heck, I have resources which I transferred from ARIN to RIPE for completely legitimate reasons under policy and which are still partially deployed in the ARIN region. </div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>
This is a bit more sticky ... the intent seems to be to state that
resources are for use in the region, but it is unclear if the
entity merely needs to be head quartered in the region, or has to
use the resources in the region. Lawyers will likely have a field
day (decade) based on this one.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>Regardless of the lack of clarity in the RSA, the bylaws and the policy document don’t lack clarity and make it clear that the organization must be operating and providing services in the AFRINIC service region. It does not require them to be utilized entirely or solely or even for any particular resource issued to be used even partially within the region so long as the organization in question provides services within the region. </div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>
<br>
Combining this with sections from the CPM (emphasis added):<br>
<br>
"4.0 Internet Number Resources are distributed in a hierarchical
structure in which IANA (The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority)
allocates blocks of number resources <b>to AFRINIC</b>, to be
redistributed <b>throughout the African region</b>. AFRINIC
redistributes to its members and also delegates to them the
authority to make assignments and <b>sub-allocations to customers</b>
where appropriate and <b>in accordance with the policies and
procedures described in this document</b>."<br>
</p>
<p>So the resources has to be distributed throughout the *African*
region, not the world or other regions, and the customers
(members) of AFRINIC then does the same, bound by the same
policies (ie, also throughout the African region).<br></p></div></blockquote>No, the resource has to be issued to an entity with nexus in the AfriNIC region. (I.e. one who is eligible to be an AfriNIC member). </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>
So I do agree that there is reason for debate as to historice
in-region vs out-of-region use, but to me it's clear that the
intent was at least for "primarily used in the african region".
Will have to let the lawyers have at this one ... there is
definitely ambiguity so let's hope that the plain and obvious
*intent* wins out.<br></p></div></blockquote><div>Might be the clear intent (though I argue it’s not so clear), but it’s clearly not what is stated and if the authors failed to say what they intended, I don’t think that’s the fault of or should be held against organizations that are compliant with the policy as written. </div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p>
<br>
On the other hand ... I think it's time to let IPv4 burn and those
not ready for v6 will eventually get disconnected from the rest of
us who are ready.<br></p></div></blockquote>On this we completely agree. </div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:439CA1AB-5956-4048-8831-5A244AB36F12@delong.com"><pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre"></pre>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>