<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear All </p>
<p>We have noted the discussion regarding reciprocity.</p>
<p>Please note that reciprocity with the other RIRs were re-verified
@April 2026 and published here - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-006-d3#implementation"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://afrinic.net/policy/proposals/2020-gen-006-d3#implementation</a></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Kind Regards</p>
<p>Madhvi </p>
<p>for Policy Liaison Team</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/06/2026 17:35, Paul Hjul wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAF4kYptV412z7rPuQqr5KwChccw+qDaKjeAE6yn82CrmNMBmzQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Sorry hit send early. Complete message below.</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 at 15:30,
Paul Hjul <<a href="mailto:hjul.paul@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">hjul.paul@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Jordi<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I
don’t recall now all the details of the
discussion, which it seems you reviewed in detail
and I agree with your summary.<br>
What I’m sure is that I always discussed the lack
of complete reprocity with other RIRs, which
impacts on the volume of transfers that can come
in to AFRINIC, and also discussed that changes in
a policy proposal can’t be done after consensus
has been reached.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks, yes the reciprocity consideration is
the main backdrop and until looking at this again
I had assumed that this policy as ratified, while
dead on arrival because of a lack of complete
reciprocity as raised in your concerns, would
still be net improvement. [I have a cynical streak
;) ]. Giving it a little bit of thought though,
there are actually two aspects to the need for a
sensible inter-RIR policy that resolves
reciprocity and my thinking has only been on the
one (I cop it to "occupational hazard") and I
haven't grappled fully. A couple of more
interesting problems can creep up from the
woodwork.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">To
solve this problem, in LACNIC I submitted a
proposal to modify the PDP in several aspects
including this one, it reached consensus and was
ratified in mid-2023, and was implemented in June
2024 with this text:
"To publish a four-week last call for comments
period for any proposal that reaches consensus. In
the case of editorial changes, a new version of
the proposal must be published and the last call
for comments period must be restarted."
This way, the chairs have the chance to
re-evaluate that the editorial changes aren’t
altering the view of the PDWG.
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That seems like a very sensible thing to come
into play. Digging in the archives also revealed a
rather dense PDP policy discussion and things get
wild. A new RDP proposal was put forward recently
(from the same authors of this particular proposal
and which I suspect is little more than an attempt
to drag AFRINIC down another disastrous path) and
I think the suggestion from Andrew needs to be
taken forward. I anticipate that there will be
some robust discussions in Nairobi followed by
some kicking and screaming and name calling.
<pre>
</pre>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Regarding
the policy compliance dashboard, it was not
ratified by the board:
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014703.html"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014703.html</a>
As a consequence, the authors had a call with
the staff and then submitted several weeks ago a
new version. We are waiting for possible inputs
from the staff before publication.
The major problem we are having is what I asked
the staff to confirm very urgently in this
email:
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014777.html"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014777.html</a></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>This bothers me quite a bit - again though I
don't think we can fault the Board. While I think
we may disagree as to the scope of authority that
a policy from the community can have once it
touches on contractual relationships, there is
likely common ground amongst everybody who
actually is engaging in good faith that the role
of Afrinic as an organization is to implement
policy and mechanisms that have consensus from the
community. The role of staff is not to create an
Afrinic fiefdom or to gatekeep the global
community.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What is quite clear is that certain members of
Afrinic staff oppose this policy on the basis that
they see it as restaining their ability to act
arbitrarily and capriciously. In doing so they
wish to advance the contention that the RSA
permits them to act in an arbitrary and capricious
manner. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I see you (together with other authors) have
proposed a revised version of the policy. I am a
little concerned that in trying to mute the staff
objection the new policy proposal might miss the
mark but I'll look more closely and comment
specifically on that policy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[So I am quoting a different email from you]</div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In
the case of AFRINIC, they perceive it as
encroaching the staff, and then the board
doesn’t ratify it. May be because Mauritius law
and that means that we must change AFRINIC to
another jurisdiction?
What is clear is that the community is the
responsible of how the resources are handled by
means of policies (not the staff, not the Board,
not AFRINIC as an organisation), and this ALSO
means that if they are misused against the
policies, the community also is the responsible
and has the RIGHT to decide how and even when
the resources must be recovered. AFRINIC just
execute the orders of the community in regard to
policies. This is the same in all the RIRs.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>There is a serious problem with the culture
amongst some of the staff but I actually do think
the vast majority of employees actually do try to
do the right thing and that some careful
leadership from the top will solve things
reasonably quickly.</div>
<div>AFRINIC as an organization has a long standing
problem of certain insiders wishing to use the
organization to advance some bizarre ideological
bent and to use the cantankerous fights which flow
as a smokescreen to engage in general larceny. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When anybody gets caught with their trousers
down poor Mauritius as a jurisdiction gets
blamed. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The problem isn't Mauritius as a jurisdiction.
With the way AFRINIC has misdirected itself the
litigation space would be infinitely more
hazardous in South Africa (for example). We would
probably have had a 15 year running saga over
whether and how PAJA applies and while there is a
certain intellectual curiosity for many reasons
the questions at hand are best left as academic.
If AFRINIC fell in one of the United Kingdom
jurisdictions I can assure you that the barristers
who've been engaged to take injunctions out on
AFRINIC would have the same level of success (if
not greater) as they've had in Mauritius (there
would be significantly fewer matters but the
overall situation would be similar). My knowledge
of Kenya is quite limited but I have little doubt
that the Keynan judiciary would largely align with
the Mauritius and English courts - although the
judges and even counsel will be more likely to
wear wigs. Namibia, Lesotho and Botswana are
distinct jurisdictions to South Africa and you
might be able to avoid some of the delay that
would arise in South Africa but you'd get much the
same endpoint as in South Africa. If AFRINIC were
seated in eSwatini we'd be able to argue for a
more Roman-Dutch contract law than anywhere else
but I am not sure anybody will actually be happy
with the outcome. Rwanda is showing promise on
some fronts but I don't think we can really escape
the extent to which stability of rule of law is
still to be entrenched. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now there are one or two aspects and
peculiarities of Mauritius and there is a certain
parochial feel to that annoys me [although we
should probably blame the French], but the problem
is not - and has never been - about the choice of
jurisdiction. </div>
<div>More importantly there is a massive difference
between allocation policies and policies aiming to
control the utilization of allocated resources.
Grandfathering is a longstanding way of avoiding
problems but emphatically avoiding retrospective
rule making doesn't serve the interests of staff.
This actually presents itself quite strongly the
moment "legacy" space comes up. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If RIPE NCC were to behave as badly as AFRINIC
has I can assure that the authorities in the
Netherlands would have operated in a vary similar
manner to Mauritius. I really don't know if LACNIC
has ever tried to pick the wrong fight on spurious
grounds but I don't think the courts of
Uruguay will afford it some unique tolerance.</div>
<div>The less that is said about the United States
the better. [If you take a gander down the ARIN
mailing lists you'll discover some spine chilling
stupidity as to the organizations understanding of
resource holding.] </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So while I agree with the principle that the
community must develop the policies and in
developing the policies provide for the mechanisms
of implementation and enforcement I'd stop very
short of suggesting that the "community" (however
you try to define it) has any right to assert some
sort of authority to override applicable law. I'd
be particularly concerned when there is some sort
of suggestion that RIRs should enjoy some special
dispensation because of some magical power
asserted by the "community".</div>
<div>A lot of mess would evaporate if there wasn't
so many naked attempts to use the PDP as a means
of control. The proper way to ensure that
resources are allocated in line with some sort of
expected case is to have undertakings made by the
recipient at the time of allocation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Therefore as a general rule it is better to
ensure that the assignment of resources is done in
a manner that promotes the objectives for which
consensus has been reached.</div>
<div>Some years ago the intelligent voices in the
community warned that the policy mechanisms were
defective and they were shouted down. The
community got the policy </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've taken a look at the proposal of
requirements around pairing IPv6 to new IPv4
allocations that you've advanced. I think it
provides a good starting point and will comment on
it properly during the week.</div>
<div>So I'll poke in on your policy proposal. My
question is - and has been for more than 10 years
is why AFRINIC does not require IPv6 deployment
undertakings when allocations for IPv4 address
space are made. The answer which nobody wants to
admit to is that that would not have served a lot
of peoples interests.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
AFRINIC Policy Liaison.
t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w:www.afrinic.net
facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia</pre>
</body>
</html>