> On Jun 15, 2022, at 12:00 , Amin Dayekh <[email protected]> wrote: > > Owen, > for the sake of time, I will quote and reply and highlighted in red from your > ext > > quote: ( Because many resource holders wish to be able to sell their > underutilized resources in a worldwide secondary market. ) you used the term > sell, in another reply you denied selling, anyway whatever the term is, this > should be governed by the rir, there should be an application with the > knowledge of the rir and justification of the use, just like when you apply > to RIR directly, not an unmonitored process. Let me remind us here of the > difference between inter-rir and LIR to another member. this step was taken > by many rir "inter rir transfer" who own majority of the IPV4, and to > regulate the transfers and continue to monitor the ipv4, closing the door on > black and grey market. let me remind us also that such cases peculiar to need > and in cases of bankruptcy or whatever reason the company might be dissolved. > Also let me remind us all the ip resources are assigned "not sold" to lir > based on NEED, justified need.
Neither Larus nor Cloud Innovation is selling resources received from AFRINIC… I stated that many other resource holders wish to do so and that is one of the reasons that those resource holders are pushing for a transfer policy. This is not inconsistent, it is your inability to differentiate and/or your failure to look past your efforts to ascribe the most sinister possible motives to every statement I make. The RIR doesn’t govern anything. The community governs the RIR and the RIR is supposed to administer the registry according to the policies set by the community and according to its bylaws which are controlled by the membership of the RIR. Perhaps it is this fundamental misunderstanding of who is specifically supposed to be empowered in the governance of the internet and as a result the RIRs that is driving some of your other misstatements. For clarity: ICANN/PTI in its role performing the IANA operates the central registry for IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and ASNs (among other things). It does so according to global policies which are set by the RIRs acting in concert through the Address Supporting Organization, specifically the ASO AC, which is synonymous with the NRO NC. Each RIR receives resources from the IANA central registry according to its justified need and pursuant to those policies mentioned above. Each RIR distributes those resources to its subscribers (members or not, depending on the RIR’s specific policies) according to the policies set in the RIR by its community and according to the bylaws of the RIR set by its members. Each RIR is expected to operate within the policies created by its membership and according to its bylaws. When an RIR fails to do so, it becomes far more dangerous than is expected. Some RIR subscribers are LIRs (Local Internet Registries). LIRs provide address space to their customers (usually for a fee) whether in relationship with connectivity services or as a separate product. Some RIR subscribers are end users and simply use the address space they receive from the RIR directly. Every RIR except AFRINIC has an inter-RIR transfer policy at this point. Yes, the recipient needs to show need in the case of an inter-RIR transfer. There are many different reasons organizations want to be able to engage in inter-RIR transfers and I enumerated several of them. You chose to focus on a single one because that is the one you hope to be able to twist into something sinister. > quote: ( .... RIPE-NCC should be going after a number of companies who are > operating in Africa using primarily RIPE-NCC issued space. Note that this is > not an issue and nobody has ever claimed it to be an issue. This allegation > that AFRINIC addresses are restricted to Africa is a fiction that has only > ever been promulgated in the context of AFRINIC and has never received > serious attention in any other RIR.) Answer: AfriNIC got the smallest portion > of ipv4 and it is called AFRICAN etc... enforcing a policy "which does not > exist as of now" to transfer inter RIR or sell will be suicide to the > continent's digital future as the world is at the scarcity of IPV4, my view. > Rather, Auditing the existing delegations and retrieval is what is supposed > to happen. in the meantime, the companies you are referring to are companies > of legitimate presence, not ip brokers and have ASNs. What is applicable to > RIPE or ARIN is not necessarily applicable to AfriNIC, they can enforce any > policy and afrinic is at liberty to do such, with the view of the little ip > resources available and the big future of Africa. If you are opposed to an inter-RIR transfer policy, then so be it. That has little or nothing to do with whether or not existing addresses registered to an organization by AFRINIC are allowed to be used outside of AFRICA or not. However, the policy that does exist now clearly does allow AFRINIC addresses to be utilized out of region virtually without restriction. A plain text reading of section 6 of the bylaws makes this quite clear. A plain text reading of the CPM finds only one place where this is contradicted and it applies ONLY to addresses issued after the activation of the Soft Landing policy. If you want to conduct legitimate audits, feel free. If you wish to abide by the legitimate outcome of those audits when they show legitimate utilization according to the CPM, the RSA, and the bylaws, I’ll fully support that. However, use out of region does not violate any of the terms in any of those documents unless the addresses were issued to the organization after the activation of the soft landing policy. AFRINIC is free to enforce any policy which has been adopted by the community and ratified by the board. There is no policy restricting the location of utilization of addresses which meets that test at this time. > quote: (AFRINIC has not won or last any cases yet regarding the geographical > restriction of IP Utilization. This is more misinformation from you.) I did > not make any statement about winning on geographical grounds, why are you > putting words in my mouth that I did not say? who is misinforming now? You stated: "AfriNic acted according to the Bylaw and court, allow me here to refresh your memory, if the ipv4 is not restricted to ise in Africa then why the proposals for inter RIR transfer and Other proposals from the Meeting which are available online? If that is allowed then AfriNic shouod have lost all cases. What is happening in Mauritius is an abuse of the Judicial System. “ Your claim is that AFRINIC should have already lost all cases on geographic basis if my statement was true. I pointed out that AFRINIC has neither lost nor won because the cases that relate to this matter have not yet concluded. I did not put words in your mouth, I responded to what you actually said. > > quote : (....soft landing) Soft landing was very good in other rir if you > really wish to compare, refer to ARIN website and see how soft landing was > easy. ARIN never passed a soft landing policy and it worked out quite well there, IMHO. However, the only mention I have made regarding soft landing in any of these statements is to mention that it is the only policy with geographical restrictions on utilization codified in the policy. I’ve also pointed out that said policy does not apply to any addresses issued to Cloud Innovation. > > quote : ( I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client. > This statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and is, > frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence.) did i say you? did i point > any finger to you? why are you always whining and dtrying to get in the > center of attention as if the whole world is revolving because of you and > around you? I said : Anyone can convince himself with any lie and convince > the minions involved in this issue who have been (mislead) and unfortunately > (paid to spread lie), did you see you or me or owen or amin in this statement? You made the following direct statement in a message sent directly to me as well as an open list: "Anyone can convince himself with any lie and convince the minions involved in this issue who have been (mislead) and unfortunately (paid to spread lie)” In context, it is quite clear you were intending to level this as a direct accusation towards me. Your use of weasel words and attempted evasions notwithstanding, at least I have the courage to own what I say and take responsibility for it. > quote: ( I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client. > This statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and is, > frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence. ) Again: Did I say you > published any video? did I point any finger at you? did I mention you? You said: "When someone accuses an organization of corruption, he should provide evidence, not just a video, especially if he/she/it and under the table corrupting the members to buy Votes.” You said this in an email directed to me and copied to an open list. So in effect, yes, you did claim I published a video, you did point a finger presumably at me, and by having my name as the target of your email, yes, you did mention me for all practical purposes. > My email was about PTA, our legal team communicated with them on their > website in Pakistan and the Website of the Embassy in Mauritius and through a > Letter TO THE embassy here, and will send further to the > embassies/commission/high commission/consulate (if any) in all African > Region, so may I understand what involved you here? Are you from Pakistan or > the spokesperson of PTA? In terms of the subsequent emails in this discussion, you put my name in the To: field of your email. If you didn’t intend to involve me, why did you do so? In terms of the original message, you made a public comment about the letter being sent on behalf of a “fraudulent and misleading organization”, so I felt obliged to point out your own misleading information that you have attempted to promulgate in this same forum and with your own misguided and misleading video. I will note, that you did not address the following component of my previous message: You wrote: >> If you think the misquotes you sent before are convincing, maybe to your >> good self, but not to me and i did not reply as I usualy say what i want and >> walk, reason being I have no time to waste on endless discussions as the 2nd >> party is very sure is justifying a wrong cause. > To which I responded: > What misquote, exactly? Please point to where my quote was in error and be > specific. > > I literally copied and pasted the text of section 6 of the bylaws. You carefully avoided answering this… Is it perhaps because you have no answer here? You could not find an actual misquote? I find three messages into this conversation that this statement: "I have no time to waste on endless discussions as the 2nd party is very sure is justifying a wrong cause.” is truly telling as apparently I am not such a second party and therefore perhaps you are admitting by your actions that I do not actually have a wrong cause. If so, this is progress. Owen > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 6:31 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> On Jun 15, 2022, at 09:22 , Amin Dayekh <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> Don’t rush, all in good time. >> >> Yes Misleading the public on claims and claims and claims with no single >> piece of evidence! >> >> AfriNic acted according to the Bylaw and court, allow me here to refresh >> your memory, if the ipv4 is not restricted to ise in Africa then why the >> proposals for inter RIR transfer and Other proposals from the Meeting which >> are available online? If that is allowed then AfriNic shouod have lost all >> cases. What is happening in Mauritius is an abuse of the Judicial System. > > Because many resource holders wish to be able to sell their underutilized > resources in a worldwide secondary market. Other companies wish to be able to > obtain addresses from that same market once the artificially constrained > AFRINIC free pool is exhausted. Because some companies would prefer to > consolidate their global resources from multiple RIRs to a single contract > with a single RIR. There are a variety of reasons that have absolutely > nothing to do with any idea of geographic restriction on usage. > > If what you say is true, then RIPE-NCC should be going after a number of > companies who are operating in Africa using primarily RIPE-NCC issued space. > Note that this is not an issue and nobody has ever claimed it to be an issue. > This allegation that AFRINIC addresses are restricted to Africa is a fiction > that has only ever been promulgated in the context of AFRINIC and has never > received serious attention in any other RIR. > > AFRINIC has not won or last any cases yet regarding the geographical > restriction of IP Utilization. This is more misinformation from you. > > I expect that with regard to that particular issue, AFRINIC will lose, as a > plain text reading of the governing documents does not support such aa > restriction except in the case of addresses issued after the activation of > the soft landing policy. > > What is happening in Mauritius is a member attempting to defend their rights > under the contract they signed against a board that is misconstruing the > bylaws and acting outside of its authority. > > The board has repeatedly lost, though it has achieved a few procedural > victories. Despite its victories, the board remains subject to a series of > injunctions preventing it from taking any of multiple illegal actions it has > attempted, including its attempt to run a rigged election. Most of the cases > are still undecided. > >> Anyone can convince himself with any lie and convince the minions involved >> in this issue who have been (mislead) and unfortunately (paid to spread lie) > > I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client. This > statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and is, > frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence. > >> When someone accuses an organization of corruption, he should provide >> evidence, not just a video, especially if he/she/it and under the table >> corrupting the members to buy Votes. > > I’ve made no videos, so I can only assume you are referring to someone else > here… Perhaps yourself? > >> If you think the misquotes you sent before are convincing, maybe to your >> good self, but not to me and i did not reply as I usualy say what i want and >> walk, reason being I have no time to waste on endless discussions as the 2nd >> party is very sure is justifying a wrong cause. > > What misquote, exactly? Please point to where my quote was in error and be > specific. > > I literally copied and pasted the text of section 6 of the bylaws. > >> By the way, I did not mention anyone in my email except PTA so which company >> you are talking about?! > > I was talking about you and the misinformation contained in your statements. > I thought that was clear from the context. > > Owen > >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM Owen DeLong <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 14, 2022, at 14:32 , Amin Dayekh <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear members, >>> my attention was drawn to another misleading video of known sources who are >>> taking maliciously all steps against the Members of AfriNIC and AfriNIC. >>> >>> in the Video I noticed a misleading statement about the "Government of >>> Pakistan" but when i paused and looked at the document it is the Pakistan >>> tELECOM authority and not the government itself. >>> >>> I am writing this post following an email sent to the Pakistan >>> telecommunication Authority aka PTA, through their website to: >>> >>> a- ask, have you really drafted and sent that letter? >>> b- inquire, on what basis have you sent that letter? have you at least >>> communicated with AFRINIC TO HEAR THEIR PART OF THE STORY? >>> c- raise a solid query with regards to their breach of our sovereignty as >>> an African continent, Regions, Countries, and Nations through the alleged >>> Letter sent to the government of Mauritius in support of a fraudulent >>> misleading organization requiring some details on how Africa's IPV4 >>> addresses ended and are in USE in Pakistan, which, as per the last time I >>> checked, is not an African country. >> >> Misleading? As in the misleading claim that AFRINIC issued addresses are >> somehow restricted to use in Africa when nothing in the bylaws, RSA, or CPM >> says so? >> >> You continue to repeat this claim despite repeated clarifications and >> corrections on the fallacious nature of the claim. Clearly, you are the one >> engaged in a campaign of disinformation. >> >> Owen >> >
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
