Hi Jordi, On 27/07/2021 22:30, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss wrote: > This will be very simple to resolve (not taking a position in one side or the > other because I don't have all the real facts and documents). > > The original justificacion of the request of the resources I don't think it > had so many "secret" and "confidential" details. After several years if any > "secrets" were there, probably aren't longer something that can't published > now. > > So why not CI, voluntarely publish that information? I don't have any stance > on this game, but if I was CI, this will be the best way to probe my points.
it seems 4 minutes earlier I suggested same to Owen. > Otherwise, I will suggest that AFRINIC asks the court to incorporate that in > the proceedings if is not there already, this way, whatever is the result of > the case, everybody will know it. At least in the countries I know, the > results of the cases are public, as well as the documents that were > incorporated during all the process: transparency. I don't know whether or not (under the Mauritius legal system) the information/documents will become public. I certainly would like to have AfriNIC ask the courts to consider them. I was hoping that was clear from my previous emails. Frank > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 27/7/21 21:12, "Frank Habicht" <[email protected]> escribió: > > Hi Owen, > > On 27/07/2021 19:09, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:26 , Frank Habicht <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> It also serves more end users than the population of all of those > >>> countries combined. What is your point? > >> > >> "serves" ...? > > Yes.>> with connectivity? > > > > In some cases. > > I'll just mentally insert the word "few" in there, because i haven't > seen any yet. > > > >> Or by "buying" IPv4 addresses one place and "selling"/leasing them > >> another place. > > > > By providing a variety of services, some of which include IP address > management > > independent of connectivity. > > "variety of services" > So my first thought was to press <shift> and the key between v and n > and then <shift> and the key between a and d > > gosh, at the risk of getting my hand slapped, just to make sure i'm > understood : BS - bullshit! > > > "IP address management" > putting something into AfriNIC's Whois / IRR ? > reverse DNS delegations? > [ probably only at extra cost (wild guess) ] > Using AfriNIC's auth DNS servers, by just updating domain: objects? > > > >> this is to me closer to speculation than the stated intention of > >> > >> 1. the resource we take are using in africa. > >> 2. we are investing in africa. > > > > We are definitely investing in Africa. That statement remains true. > > No doubt. > Lawyers in Mauritius. > > > > Regarding the former statement, things do change over time. > > Agree. > Also validity of justifications of IPv4 space. > I maintain this: > - I have no idea how it was justified. > - I have no right to see this justification. > - I consider it likely that commitments have been made. > - I consider it likely that not all were - and still are - fulfilled. > > > At the time the statement was made, it was true. > > I do currently believe that. > > > Today, the statement “many of the resources we received from AFRINIC > are being used in Africa” would be more accurate. > > I'm still not too sure about my English knowledge. Especially about > "many". I generally encourage people to be as specific as possible. > Can I interpret this as "more than three IPv4 addresses we received from > AFRINIC are being used in Africa” ? > > > >> which is a quote from > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2014/004161.html > > > > Yes… It’s a 7 year old statement which was true at the time. > > And I believe so was the justification for IPv4 addresses - at the time. > Currently, I believe that. That back then the justification was ok. > > > >> and which I understand was good reason to receive IPv4 addresses. > >> *was* > >> when it was true. > > > > And today, a good reason to keep the addresses is: > > We use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own and > our customers networks. > > "own network" ? > I believe that in your home area it would be a very valid question to > ask: "which AS is that?" (ie on nanog) > > "customers networks." > "customer" certainly not in terms of connectivity. > [ to be specific: for 99% of traffic towards these IPs [1], I hazard the > guess that it doesn't pass through CI connectivity.] > > but "customer" instead only in terms of leasing IP addresses. > which you (CI) got the right to do when getting them from AfriNIC in the > first place??? I beg to doubt!!! > > And I think this is what it's all about. CI interpretation vs AfriNIC > interpretation. And I think that latter is shared with a majority of the > community. > > > This is a perfectly valid justification for addresses and there is no > basis in current policy to deny it and > > it remains a true statement to this day. > > If > it was a perfectly valid justification to provide addresses to CI's > "customers" - without the "customers" receiving (for all the duration of > the lease) any services but the lease of IPv4 addresses (not counting > BS-"IP address management"), and with that fact (of leasing) being > stated in said justification - and this accepted as justification at the > time by AfriNIC, > then > I rest my case. > > > Frank > > PS: sorry for the long sentence, it seems my mind turned "legal". > > [1] > "these IPs": > 2x /11 and 2x /12 > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > ********************************************** > IPv4 is over > Are you ready for the new Internet ? > http://www.theipv6company.com > The IPv6 Company > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
