+1 @Owen On Saturday, June 26, 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 25, 2021, at 23:29 , Noah <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey Ronald, > > > > You are spot on..... > > > > I have always argued that every single IPv4 integer that numbers a NIC > on some router/server on this continent, goes to have a profound > socio-economic impact, whether its some unemployed AFRINIC youth who has > figured that they can run a small ecommerce business off a local ecommerce > platform or a Telecom/ISP that is doing what it takes to get every single > AFRICAN connected to the Internet on the AFRICAN Continent. > > > > Folk got guts out here openly telling folks that we ought to turn > intergers into a commodity worthy some 30USD. > > > > > My question to AFRINIC, do your resource members justification for IPv4 > needs, include that of running IPv4 Leasing? > > Virtually every LIR leases addresses in one form or another. What is your > exact definition of leasing in this context? > What definition do you (apparently) feel should be or is precluded by > policy? > If you feel that some definition is precluded by policy, please point to > the relevant policy by section number in the CPM. > > > Does AFRINIC have IPv4 brokers as resource members? > > Are you saying that an LIR who is also a broker is not entitled to > membership for some reason? Unless that is your claim, > what is the point of this question? > > > Because it seems to me that folk out here are arguing that IPv4 integers > themselves are meant to be some product sold at 30USD. > > Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not (and I’m not overly > fond of it), the reality is that IP address registrations (not the > addresses themselves, actually) are being bought and sold for ~30USD each > every day all over the world. I held out against this > longer than virtually anyone else in the ARIN region, but eventually even > I had to face the reality that the sale of IP address > registrations was going to be a reality and the question was whether it > would include updates to WHOIS or simply become > a way in which the registry became progressively less meaningful/less > useful over time. > > What we were able to do is somewhat (even mostly in most regions) preserve > the needs basis for receiving addresses > even if received through a purchase. > > > My understanding was that the need for IPv4 was for the intergers to be > used by the requester to number infrastructure for their networks/systems > and their downstram customers/users so as to offer a wide range on > services/products that Impact AFRICA's socio-economically and politically > from, NREN, Higher Learning Institutions, Agriculture, ISP/Telecoms, > Egovernment, FINTECH, SME's, Ecommerce (I know of unemployed youth > leveraging the power of online platforms to forge a decent life and > economically empower themselves through ecommorce, entertainment, > influencers etc). The true digital transformation if you will. > > > > So I really need to understand what Paul is going on about to ascertain > what I view as clear misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what AFRINIC > is all about. > > Here’s where you lose me. I have tremendous difficulty connecting your > mostly rational questions/statements above with this. Please point to the > part of the bylaws, RSA, or CPM that constrains number usage to things > which impact AFRICA socio-economically or politically. I don’t recall > seeing either of those terms in any of the three documents. It’s certainly > not contained in section 6 of the bylaws. > > [snip] > RFG’s early post about members which have no nexus in the region being the > “clearly prohibited” case. > [/snip] > > > Note that Ronald makes it clear that entities which have no nexus in the > AFRINIC service > region should not be eligible for membership. However, that’s not what > Paul’s question was > about. We’ll call that the “clearly prohibited” case. > > The obviously “permitted” case is an entity which operates exclusively > within the AFRINIC > region. > > The gray area in between those two extremes is where clarification appears > to be sought. > > AFRINIC has been claiming that entities with operations both within and > outside of the > AFRINIC service region should not be allowed to use their AFRINIC > resources on their > infrastructure outside fo the AFRINIC region. > > IMHO (and others share this opinion), section 6 of the bylaws does not > provide a basis > for AFRINIC to make such a claim. IMHO, one meets the requirements of > section 6 if > one merely has a business presence (legal nexus) within the AFRINIC > service region > and some amount of operations there. It does not matter whether that is > the majority > of ones operations, a tiny fraction, or what. As long as one: > 1. Is domiciled within the region (legal nexus). > 2. Has some operations (including infrastructure) within the > region. > and 3. Provides some services within the region. > > Then one meets the tests of section 6 of the bylaws as currently written, > regardless > of what portion of one’s network are numbered using AFRINIC resources and > regardless > of what fraction of your (pre-soft-landing-phase-2) resources are used > elsewhere. > > If the membership wants to change that, then there is a process for > updating the > bylaws, but until that update happens, there is a need for clarity from > AFRINIC on > whether they intend to continue to pursue their previously stated > misinterpretations > of the bylaws requiring ALL usage to be in-region. > > I won’t presume to speak for Paul, but I do know that Paul has operations > both > inside the AFRINIC region and outside, so perhaps that is what “Paul is > going > on about”. I’m sure he can clarify if I am wrong. > > Owen > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Kind regards, Paschal.
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
