On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:03 AM Andrew Alston <[email protected]> wrote: > > You know what amuses me about this whole thread. > > One of the concerns raised about this policy – time and again – is that it > would be used to selectively target people.
Yes. This is a real issue. A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and victimizing is very, very bad. AUTHORS, please do everyone a favor and let this proposal disappear from here. It is creating mostly sad vibes. J > Then – we were told that wasn’t the case – and the policy was made to refer > to random selection and evidence base etc. > > Yet what I am reading here – is people deliberately – in the context of this > proposal – going after one company – with zero evidence to back up any of > their claims that the allocation was or wasn’t legitimate, and despite the > fact that the application had to be granted in the context of the IPv4 policy > – which means the host masters would have checked the application. > > > > So – is this policy actually what I have always feared – a tool to be used to > go on witch hunts with no hard evidence that anyone wants to make public? Or > are we saying that we don’t trust the host masters when they allocation space > to do their checks correctly? If it’s the latter – how do you propose to > deal with the fact that if they couldn’t get the allocation right – what > makes you think they can audit correctly? (And I am in no way saying that the > allocation wasn’t legitimate, or that they screwed up, I am not privy to > those application documents to know – and neither is anyone else here) > > > > But basically – this thread – is progressively proving that one of my (and > other peoples) major concerns about this policy were dead on target – that > some individuals are attempting to pass a policy to go after things they > don’t feel are correct – whats next – going after the next guy who disagrees > with you – or argues with you? > > > > I started this email saying it amuses me – the fact that the fears are being > shown to be very correct is amusing – at the same time – its horrifying to > see the policy process abused in this manner. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: Komi Elitcha <[email protected]> > Sent: 18 December 2018 10:49 > To: Owen DeLong <[email protected]> > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting > - > > > > Owen, > > > > The association between larus, cloud innovation and outsideHeaven has been > shared on this list before - > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007352.html > > > > Curiously, you always have strong opinions about policy proposals, but never > have time to look archives to clarify important points or propose amendments. > > > > This is not constructive considering the volume of your contributions > especially as you come from another region. It is even worse when viewed in > the context of Afrinic region where every little progress is treasured > development. > > > > You have been arguing about objections that have not been addressed and I > find it bizarre that you could not find them....despite my efforts to provide > you an initial list. > > > > Komi > > > > Le sam. 15 déc. 2018 à 2:41 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > > On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Owen > > Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that > > they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or > > better than any other resource holder, so I’m not sure why you believe > > the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the > > discussion. > > What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR membership, > holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even countries like > Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real Internet > infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being consumed by > customers on the continent. > > > > If your statements are true (they aren’t), then how did AfriNIC approve such > numbers being issued? > > > > With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to > discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the known > Individual based out of Africa. > > > > Again, more assertions without evidence. > > > > Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help protect > and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review policy by all > means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes to the AfriNIC > community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere with PDP. > > > > OK… I get it that you don’t like Larus. Nonetheless, While I have worked with > Larus and I know that some of your assertions don’t match reality, I am not > bought and paid for > > by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with their > holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. > > > > My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. > You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed > objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well > before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever > to Larus. > > > > That is where the problem lays… > > > > This is where you think the problem lies. > > > > I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses > their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued is > part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit of an > agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of this > policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is… An attack on > large resource members by another portion of the community. > > > > Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the > review policy. > > > > Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. > > > > Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main target > of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the proponents, the > reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations affiliated with > voices opposing this proposal. > > > > Owen > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
