Skip to main content

AFRINIC · RIR Watchdog

IPv4 Resource Transfers within the AFRINIC region (AFPUB-2016-v4-003-DRAFT-01)

Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.

Source facts

Policy ID
AFPUB-2016-V4-003
RIR
AFRINIC
Official status
Last Call
Normalized status
Last call
Introduced
Unknown
Last source update
Oct 1, 2026
Coverage
Partial

Who actually shaped the debate?

7Total participants
1Discussion contributors
6Formal actors
1Discussion messages
1Effective participants
100%Top-five discussion share
1People covering 50%
1People covering 80%

BTW Analysis

BTW Analysis

What changed

No policy change can be established from the supplied verified facts because the policy chronology is empty and no proposal, amendment, version comparison, or implementation record is provided.

What the debate was really about

The substance and framing of the debate cannot be determined. The supplied record contains no messages, attributed arguments, participant stance timelines, issue framing, or rationale.

Decision vs debate

Neither a formal decision nor an observed discussion is documented. Zero messages, participants, formal actors, active days, stance-bearing participants, and stance transitions cannot be interpreted as approval, rejection, consensus, abandonment, or implementation.

Participation concentration

The top-message shares, HHI, effective participant count, and core-participant counts are all zero because the observed dataset contains zero messages and zero participants. These values describe an empty observed dataset and do not show broad, evenly distributed, concentrated, representative, or captured participation.

Chokepoint analysis

No procedural, institutional, or participant chokepoint can be identified from the supplied facts. There is no evidence showing who controlled agenda setting, deliberation, consensus assessment, ratification, rejection, or implementation.

Uncertainties

  • It is uncertain whether the zero counts mean that no discussion occurred or that no discussion material was captured within the source revision.
  • The observation period, extraction coverage, and extraction methodology are not supplied, so the completeness of the participation snapshot cannot be assessed.
  • No policy chronology, proposal text, amendment record, participant stance timeline, or formal decision record is available.
  • The relationship among discussion participants, formal actors, and total participants is not explained.
  • The current versioned Doctrine authority does not establish a complete official position for this subject.

Policy evolution

2
Accepted · Implemented
Jul 23, 2016
Source facts ↗

Recipient qualification standard · Draft 2 replaces the broadly worded recipient membership/other-requirements clause with an explicit requirement to qualify for the transferred amount under the same standards as a direct AFRINIC allocation or assignment at the time of request. Membership remains required by the separate source-and-recipient clause.

Staff assessment of the activation trigger · The draft-2 snapshot adds staff concerns that tying activation to phase 2 of the soft-landing policy could become inapplicable if that policy changed or ceased to have a phase 2. These are assessment comments; draft 2 itself retains the phase-2 trigger.

Staff assessment of prior transfers · New staff commentary identifies a possible distinction in the 12-month source restriction: its wording could permit a recent inbound inter-RIR recipient to transfer within AFRINIC while preventing a recent intra-AFRINIC recipient from doing so. The proposed restriction itself is retained; the commentary is not a newly enacted exception.

Staff request for a dispute definition · The draft-2 snapshot adds a request to define disputes and clarify how disputes involving the receiving organisation would affect a transfer. The underlying requirement that the source hold undisputed resources is retained. A staff request for clarification is not treated as a completed policy definition.

Staff assessment of the need horizon · Added staff comments identify a mismatch between the draft's 12-month recipient need horizon and the cited soft-landing allocation period of eight months, suggesting alignment or deletion because current-policy qualification already applies. Draft 2 still contains the 12-month clause; the comments alone do not amend it.

Recorded page status · The retained draft-1 page is labelled Under Discussion and the draft-2 page Implemented. This is a difference between page metadata captured in the archive; it does not establish when implementation occurred or prove that draft 2 was implemented on its submission date.

3
Last call · Last Call
Dec 23, 2016
Source facts ↗

Trigger and CPM integration · Draft 3 frames the proposal as new CPM article 5.7 and applies it to justified IPv4 needs AFRINIC cannot satisfy. It removes the dependency on reaching phase 2 of the soft-landing policy, expressly confirmed in its revision history.

Transfer-source eligibility · Draft 3 allows resources to come from either an existing AFRINIC member's account or a legacy holder in AFRINIC's service region. This expands the prior rule that both parties must be AFRINIC members. The recipient remains subject to a separate AFRINIC membership and RSA requirement.

Legacy status after transfer · Draft 3 explicitly states that transferred IPv4 legacy resources lose legacy status. The previous recipient conditions required current-policy compliance and an RSA but contained no corresponding legacy-status provision.

Recipient need horizon · Draft 3 removes the standalone requirement to demonstrate up to a 12-month supply and explains that justification follows policies in force. It also removes the separate direct-allocation-equivalence sentence as already covered by the retained need-justification clause. These edits do not eliminate AFRINIC's approval of recipient need.

Recorded page status · The draft-2 snapshot is labelled Implemented, while the draft-3 snapshot is labelled Last Call. These captured labels are retained as a metadata discrepancy; the comparison does not infer a reversal of implementation or overwrite the proposal's authoritative current status.

Debate timeline

  1. Official version

    DRAFT01

    Under discussion · Under Discussion

    Source facts ↗
  2. Official version

    2

    Accepted · Implemented

    Source facts ↗
  3. Official version

    3

    Last call · Last Call

    Source facts ↗

Entities

Freshness: Stale
  1. Discussion messages1
    First activityFeb 4, 2016
    Last activityFeb 4, 2016
    First explicit stanceSupport with changes
    Latest explicit stanceSupport with changes
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo validated consistency assessment
    Other policies2
    Freshness: Stale

    Last research attempt: Oct 13, 2026

    Identity verified: Oct 13, 2026

    Liquid Telecommunications · Historical
    Andrew Alston, Liquid Telecommunications
    ripe74.ripe.net

    Verified public profiles

    Discussion messages
    1
    First activity
    Feb 4, 2016
    Last activity
    Feb 4, 2016
    First explicit stance
    Support with changes
    Latest explicit stance
    Support with changes
    Stance changes
    0
    Viewpoint consistency
    No validated consistency assessment
    Other policies
    2

    First explicit stance: Support with changes → Latest explicit stance: Support with changes · Stance changes: 0

    Viewpoint consistency: No validated consistency assessment

    1. Feb 4, 2016 · Support with changes

      [rpd] Some thoughts, and some actions required

      I have an issue with limiting transfers to intra-RIR for the following reasons … A.) We all know there is a massive shortage of space in Africa, so who is going to be selling what they need for critical business usage? No African company with half a braincell would sell space on the continent, because unlike elsewhere in the world, the allocations are already only just what people need … B.) The majority of legacy space and other huge allocations where a lot of the sales could come from exist outside the region, we need access to that … Let me be blunt, I?ve already started trying to figure out just how much space I may need to get on the secondary market post exhaustion, for planning purposes. If I?m right, there simply isn?t enough of it in Africa to accomplish this. I am VIOLENTLY opposed to African companies selling to outside entities, but I am also a realist and believe we may well end up having to buy from outside entities. … IP-V4 Exhaustion is unavoidable and as a community, we should handled this in a way that we continue to pursue the mission of our community: ?Work for the growth of Internet?. … This growth requires more nodes to be connected and than larger address space. To cater for this need (large address space), IP V6 has been defined. … * A transition period is needed to get this protocol widely adopted ( we are currently in) … * Lack of available IPV4 creates the secondary market as previously stated in this thread (this exists already). … According to what has been pointed out here, we as community shall do the following: … 1. Adopt a transfer policy to allow an official access to secondary market … I would agree to adopt In Region Transfer Policy, and apply a sanction (Withrawal of transferred ressources) of any form Inter-RIR transfer that would be done by a member. … This will allow African Region market to be regulated according to its environment. The cost of goods on a market depends on the need. Our current market needs are not the same with other Region and it won't be in our benefit to open this door. … 2. Strengthen allocation requirements: I fully support this.

      Source facts ↗

    Total policy messages: 6

  2. RENU - Alain P. AINA · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0
  3. WACREN · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0
  4. NIC CIS - Nicholas Mbonimpa · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0
  5. Ali HADJI · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0
  6. Comores Telecoms - Komi ELITCHA - Damnam Kanlanfei BAGOLIBE - Serge Patrick GHANSAH-GNONKOTO · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0
  7. Comores Telecoms - Komi Elitcha - Damnam Kanlanfei BAGOLIBE - Patrick GH · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0

Sources and coverage

Official policy sources

Public discussion archives

  • afrinic-rpd
    Earliest captured
    Aug 4, 2004
    Latest captured
    Aug 25, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    13,116
    Known gaps
    0
  • www.afrinic.net
  • afrinic-africann
    Earliest captured
    Aug 3, 2026
    Latest captured
    Oct 2, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    2,624
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-afripv6-discuss
    Earliest captured
    Aug 17, 2015
    Latest captured
    Sep 18, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    2,538
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-announce
    Earliest captured
    Aug 18, 2015
    Latest captured
    Sep 18, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    2,497
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-community-discuss
    Earliest captured
    Sep 11, 2015
    Latest captured
    Dec 29, 2019
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    3,127
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-dbwg
    Earliest captured
    Aug 4, 2026
    Latest captured
    Oct 6, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    965
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-dnssec-ops
    Earliest captured
    Aug 18, 2015
    Latest captured
    Dec 1, 2016
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    307
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-icp2-review
    Earliest captured
    Apr 10, 2025
    Latest captured
    Nov 10, 2025
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    0
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-measurement-wg
    Earliest captured
    Feb 1, 2018
    Latest captured
    Nov 22, 2024
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    138
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-mira
    Earliest captured
    Nov 17, 2020
    Latest captured
    Nov 22, 2024
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    0
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-ois-wg
    Earliest captured
    Sep 9, 2021
    Latest captured
    Nov 22, 2024
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    0
    Known gaps
    0
  • afrinic-rpki-discuss
    Earliest captured
    Jan 15, 2016
    Latest captured
    Apr 23, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 15, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    154
    Known gaps
    0

Coverage

Partial
Earliest captured: Aug 4, 2004
Latest captured: Oct 15, 2026

Freshness

Freshness: Stale · Last refresh:

Known gaps

  • www.afrinic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • www.afrinic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-rpd: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • www.afrinic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-africann: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-afripv6-discuss: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-announce: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-community-discuss: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-dbwg: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-dnssec-ops: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-measurement-wg: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • afrinic-rpki-discuss: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.