> On Jul 2, 2021, at 04:23 , Bill Woodcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2 Jul 2021, at 11:49, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Let’s say that [an ISP in Mauritius] also operates an IP Brokerage in the
>> Netherlands trading in allocations/assignments issued by RIPE-NCC and
>> operating entirely within the RIPE-NCC policies.
>>
>> Would you still say that it’s legal OK for AFRINIC to reject/terminate the
>> membership of the one operating the brokerage in the Netherlands on that
>> basis?
>
> I believe the point that Mike is making (which I agree with, I don’t think he
> needs me to reinterpret his already-clear explanation of his thoughts, I’m
> just registering agreement in my own words) is that, yes, an association can
> reject the membership of anyone they feel like, particularly if they do so on
> clear, objective, and transparent grounds.
>
> That’s the difference between an association and a class. The class of “ISPs
> in Mauritius” includes all ISPs in Mauritius. An association of ISPs in
> Mauritius can include, or not include, anyone… That’s what an association
> is: a group of parties who freely choose to associate with each other. If
> someone can be forced upon them, it’s no longer a free choice to associate,
> so it’s no longer an association.
>
> What, may I ask, is your point in arguing that AfriNIC should not be able to
> define its own membership?
I think that, rather than arguing that they cannot define their membership, I
am arguing that if they were to do so on such arbitrary and capricious lines as
whether or not said organization is also an address broker in distant lands
doesn’t meet the “clear, objective and transparent” test very well.
Assuming that even in the simple case of a single organization, it does meet
the test, then one has to consider the following easy derivatives:
An organization which happens to have a wholly owned subsidiary that is
a broker
An organization which isn’t a broker, but happens to be the wholly
owned subsidiary of a broker
An organization which is owned by an entity which also owns such a
broker
etc.
For any “clear, objective, and transparent” version of such a prohibition, I’m
pretty sure it’s relatively trivial to design a structure that is just grey
enough to become “shaded, subjective, and translucent at best”.
Owen
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
