Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Mirriam via Community-Discuss]

Hello,
(*)https://www.afrinic.net/ast/pdf/2014-minutes/20141123-minutes.pdf

It appears that these board meetings *(in the link above) were the ones where 
the chair was forced to step down to become vice-chair for Sunday to become 
Chair… after CEO resignation and departure were announced. 
And now, here we are, awaiting explanations for the pending and hanging 
questions!


Mirriam.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 10:55 AM, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:   
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
  ___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sunday Folayan]

This question from John deserves an answer. It will help the community.

Maybe someone from Cloud Innovation should nudge Owen just in case he is
the only one with the answer.

- Sunday.

On Sun, Aug 8, 2021, 2:25 PM John Curran  wrote:

> On 6 Aug 2021, at 6:05 AM, John Curran  wrote:
>
>
> On 5 Aug 2021, at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
> community-discuss@afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> ...
> ALL LIRs lease INRs. Many do it in relation to also providing
> connectivity services. Cloud Innovation also does it in relation
> to providing connectivity services in some (but not all) cases.
>
> ... We (Cloud Innovation) have customers just like any other LIR.
>
> We (Cloud Innovation) assign addresses to them for use on internet
> connected hosts, just like any other LIR. The only distinction between
> us (Cloud Innovation) and most other LIRs is that we will do so regardless
> of whether we are the provider of that connectivity or not.
>
>
> Owen -
>
> Thanks for the above – I believe it is helpful in clarifying how the IP
> address blocks are being used today.  For my understanding, is this same
> purpose for which they were originally requested and issued?
>
>
> Owen -
>
> You have posted dozens of messages to this list of rationale asserting
> Cloud Innovation’s legitimacy in number resource matters, even going so
> face as observing that they are "a model citizen of the IP number resource
> using community” and a party with “meticulous” record keeping.  You have
> also taken to responding to many messages on this list detailing their IP
> number resource utilization as proper, and have no issue identifying as “We
> (Cloud Innovation)” in those responses.
>
> Surely you could do the AFRINIC community the courtesy of an answer to a
> single question about their number resource utilization – i.e. a yes/no
> question of fact regarding the number resources that Cloud Innovation
> obtained from AFRINIC and that now appear subject to dispute with AFRINIC?
>(While I am sure that many have found your many assertions enlightening,
> it is often helpful to have clear statements of fact in order keep
> discussions well-informed and anchored to reality.)
>
> Again, for clarity – “Is Cloud Innovation’s usage today of the number
> resources for the same purpose for which they were originally requested and
> issued?”  This simple question is certainly something that the community
> has a reasonable right to know – and should be trivial to answer given your
> exhaustive knowledge demonstrated in correspondence already on the matter.
>
> Thanks in advance!
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Gregoire EHOUMI via Community-Discuss]

Hello, 

It looks like Owen and Cloud Innovation have decided to not respond to John on 
this trivial question.
This is an important discussion point as AFRINIC has always been in need-based 
allocation mode.

Silence from a very vocal person is also an answer.
Thanks John for asking.

— Gregoire



> On Aug 8, 2021, at 9:21 AM, John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 6 Aug 2021, at 6:05 AM, John Curran  > wrote:
>> 
>> On 5 Aug 2021, at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
>> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> ALL LIRs lease INRs. Many do it in relation to also providing
>>> connectivity services. Cloud Innovation also does it in relation
>>> to providing connectivity services in some (but not all) cases.
>>> 
>>> ... We (Cloud Innovation) have customers just like any other LIR.
>>> 
>>> We (Cloud Innovation) assign addresses to them for use on internet
>>> connected hosts, just like any other LIR. The only distinction between
>>> us (Cloud Innovation) and most other LIRs is that we will do so regardless
>>> of whether we are the provider of that connectivity or not.
>> 
>> Owen - 
>> 
>> Thanks for the above – I believe it is helpful in clarifying how the IP 
>> address blocks are being used today.  For my understanding, is this same 
>> purpose for which they were originally requested and issued?
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> You have posted dozens of messages to this list of rationale asserting Cloud 
> Innovation’s legitimacy in number resource matters, even going so face as 
> observing that they are "a model citizen of the IP number resource using 
> community” and a party with “meticulous” record keeping.  You have also taken 
> to responding to many messages on this list detailing their IP number 
> resource utilization as proper, and have no issue identifying as “We (Cloud 
> Innovation)” in those responses. 
> 
> Surely you could do the AFRINIC community the courtesy of an answer to a 
> single question about their number resource utilization – i.e. a yes/no 
> question of fact regarding the number resources that Cloud Innovation 
> obtained from AFRINIC and that now appear subject to dispute with AFRINIC?
> (While I am sure that many have found your many assertions enlightening, it 
> is often helpful to have clear statements of fact in order keep discussions 
> well-informed and anchored to reality.) 
> 
> Again, for clarity – “Is Cloud Innovation’s usage today of the number 
> resources for the same purpose for which they were originally requested and 
> issued?”  This simple question is certainly something that the community has 
> a reasonable right to know – and should be trivial to answer given your 
> exhaustive knowledge demonstrated in correspondence already on the matter. 
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> /John
> 
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[John Curran]

On 6 Aug 2021, at 6:05 AM, John Curran 
mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote:

On 5 Aug 2021, at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:
...
ALL LIRs lease INRs. Many do it in relation to also providing
connectivity services. Cloud Innovation also does it in relation
to providing connectivity services in some (but not all) cases.

... We (Cloud Innovation) have customers just like any other LIR.
We (Cloud Innovation) assign addresses to them for use on internet
connected hosts, just like any other LIR. The only distinction between
us (Cloud Innovation) and most other LIRs is that we will do so regardless
of whether we are the provider of that connectivity or not.

Owen -

Thanks for the above – I believe it is helpful in clarifying how the IP address 
blocks are being used today.  For my understanding, is this same purpose for 
which they were originally requested and issued?

Owen -

You have posted dozens of messages to this list of rationale asserting Cloud 
Innovation’s legitimacy in number resource matters, even going so face as 
observing that they are "a model citizen of the IP number resource using 
community” and a party with “meticulous” record keeping.  You have also taken 
to responding to many messages on this list detailing their IP number resource 
utilization as proper, and have no issue identifying as “We (Cloud Innovation)” 
in those responses.

Surely you could do the AFRINIC community the courtesy of an answer to a single 
question about their number resource utilization – i.e. a yes/no question of 
fact regarding the number resources that Cloud Innovation obtained from AFRINIC 
and that now appear subject to dispute with AFRINIC?(While I am sure that 
many have found your many assertions enlightening, it is often helpful to have 
clear statements of fact in order keep discussions well-informed and anchored 
to reality.)

Again, for clarity – “Is Cloud Innovation’s usage today of the number resources 
for the same purpose for which they were originally requested and issued?”  
This simple question is certainly something that the community has a reasonable 
right to know – and should be trivial to answer given your exhaustive knowledge 
demonstrated in correspondence already on the matter.

Thanks in advance!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Please see my comment below, inline...

Le vendredi 6 août 2021, John Curran  a écrit :

> On 5 Aug 2021, at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
> community-discuss@afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> ...
> ALL LIRs lease INRs. Many do it in relation to also providing
> connectivity services. Cloud Innovation also does it in relation
> to providing connectivity services in some (but not all) cases.
>
> ... We (Cloud Innovation) have customers just like any other LIR.
>
> We (Cloud Innovation) assign addresses to them for use on internet
> connected hosts, just like any other LIR. The only distinction between
> us (Cloud Innovation) and most other LIRs is that we will do so regardless
> of whether we are the provider of that connectivity or not.
>
>
> Owen -
>
> Thanks for the above – I believe it is helpful in clarifying how the IP
> address blocks are being used today.  For my understanding, is this same
> purpose for which they were originally requested and issued?
>
>
...well put, dear John,

Thanks for this interesting question.
...they started an "INRs War"; against RFC7020.

Shalom,
--sb.



> Thanks in advance,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>
>
>
>

-- 
--

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
Subscribe to Mailing List: 
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

{warning: top-posting!}
Dear AfriNIC's Community,

...this is a pure "dialogue of deafs" :'-(

Shalom,
--sb.

Le jeudi 5 août 2021, Owen DeLong  a écrit :

>
>
> On Aug 5, 2021, at 04:44 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>
> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>
> Please see my comments below, inline...
>
> Le mardi 3 août 2021, Owen DeLong  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2021, at 00:03 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>>
>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>>
>> Please see my comments below, inline...
>>
>> Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong  a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>>>
>>> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
>>> community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :
>>>


>
>> [...]
>
>
>>> I have not forgotten, but we are not talking about reservation.
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Owen,
>> Thanks to take time to reply to my email, brother.
>>
>> ...so, *we*! i assume the same *we* you usually
>> use to call your team to support your personal  interpretation of the
>> facts?
>>
>>
>> No, we is you and I, the people engaged in this particular conversational
>> thread.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your clarification, brother.
>
> ...so, you try to impose to all others a particular
> theme?
>
>
> ??? I don’t try to impose anything. I simply made a statement about
> the nature of the items you and I were discussing. They are not
> reservations
> by the meaning contained any AFRINIC governing document.
>
> Please, sir, how can i be removed from your pool?
>
>
> I am very confused here. What pool do you speak of?
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>
>> We don’t do anything to interfere with or prevent end-users
>> or clients from seeking internet number resources from any
>> other source.
>>
>>
> ...please, sir, could you share your stats on the number of orgs, you have
> helped to become LIR
> since the time your org shipted from LIR to INRs
> seller? mini-RIR? or Global LIR?
>
>
> No. Doing so would violate the confidentiality of my clients and is not
> material to any
> legitimate discussion here.
>
> RFC7020 states:
>
> ~°~
> [...]
>
> In
>   cases where LIRs span multiple regions, those LIRs have
>   established relationships with multiple RIRs.
>
> [...]
> ~°~
>
> ...full part:
>
> ~°~
>
> Local IRs
>
>   Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are established through a
>   relationship with the body from which they received their
>   addresses, typically the RIR that serves the region in which they
>   operate, a parent LIR, or other number-allocating entity.  In
>   cases where LIRs span multiple regions, those LIRs have
>   established relationships with multiple RIRs.  LIRs perform IP
>   address allocation services for their customers, typically ISPs,
>   end users, or child LIRs (also known as "sub-LIRs").
>
> ~°~
> 
>
>
> First, you seem to have missed this:
>
> Abstract
>
>This document provides information about the current Internet Numbers
>Registry System used in the distribution of globally unique Internet
>Protocol (IP) address space and autonomous system (AS) numbers.
>
>This document also provides information about the processes for
>further evolution of the Internet Numbers Registry System.
>
>This document replaces
> RFC 2050
> .
>
>This document does not propose any changes to the current Internet
>Numbers Registry System.  Rather, it documents the Internet Numbers
>Registry System as it works today.
>
>
> Then as you have pointed out, it states “typically”. By definition,  this
> means that there
> are likely to exist atypical situations as well.
>
> There are, in fact, multiple entities operating in multiple regions, but
> only having
> relationships with a single RIR and there is nothing (outside of one
> LACNIC policy)
> that serves to hamper or restrict this behavior.
>
> Owen
>
>
>

-- 
--

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
Subscribe to Mailing List: 
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[John Curran]

On 5 Aug 2021, at 6:04 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:
...
ALL LIRs lease INRs. Many do it in relation to also providing
connectivity services. Cloud Innovation also does it in relation
to providing connectivity services in some (but not all) cases.

... We (Cloud Innovation) have customers just like any other LIR.
We (Cloud Innovation) assign addresses to them for use on internet
connected hosts, just like any other LIR. The only distinction between
us (Cloud Innovation) and most other LIRs is that we will do so regardless
of whether we are the provider of that connectivity or not.

Owen -

Thanks for the above – I believe it is helpful in clarifying how the IP address 
blocks are being used today.  For my understanding, is this same purpose for 
which they were originally requested and issued?

Thanks in advance,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:

>... from the minutes of board meetings held in November 2014(*)
>...

>The Legal Counsel informed the Board that AFRINIC can't withhold a genuine
>request for IP allocations, it has to allocate, and if later it gets
>evidence that the application was fraudulent, supported by evidence
>collected, then it will be able to recover the resources as per the RSA.

Juat as I have said previously, this has been *the* problem with *all* of
the RIRs and their "secret" procedures for making allocations of valuable
resources, dating all of the way back to the beginning of the RIR system:

How can anyone ever prove that there has been fraud in an application for
number resources where no "outsider" or independent oversight body is ever
even allowed to see the original requests and supporting materials?  It is
simply not possible.  So all resource members and even prospective future
resource members in all regions are 100% dependent upon the our faith in
the honesty of the "insiders" who make these decisions.  And in the case
of Ernest, at least, we now know that that faith was quite seriously
misplaced.

In any case, as we all now also know, Ashok's cavalier comment that "Oh!
If there is a problem, we'll just recover the resources!" can now been seen,
with 20/20 hindsight, to have been, at best, rather over-optimistic.
Because reclaiming resources is not quite so simple, apparently (which
may be the understatement of the century).


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Hi Ronald

Le mar. 3 août 2021 à 23:59, Arnaud AMELINA  a écrit :

>
>
> ...
>
>
>
>> Th names of board members or board chairmen on these dates is perfectly
>> irrelevant because the board never reviewed any of these allocations,
>> or any of the documents or other materials that were used to justify them.
>> The allocations were all made as a result of "staff" decisions, not the
>> board.
>>
>
> You can't be totally sure on this one, because it was the period we saw
> the Board playing the CEO Prerogatives, and entering in the micromanagement
> of AFRINIC, remember.
>

As I said here, you can't be totally sure, find below some useful
informations

Allocations to CI have  been controversial since the beginning and have
been discussed intensively on list since 2014.

Board got involved at some point as one can see from the minutes of board
meetings held  in November 2014(*)

It reads:


2.0 Discussion and decision about the Board Statement regarding the case of
a particular resource application.

There was a discussion about whether the Board should make a statement. SF
said that a message had been sent on the RPD list.

The CEO pointed out that the Registration Services Team has encountered
several difficulties with the application.

AA argued that a statement made by a third party on the list meant there
was a dispute.

The Legal Counsel explained the term ‘dispute’ and suggested that there is
no dispute yet.

The CEO said that right now there is no dispute. And that he has already
given the confirmation for the staff to allocate the resources. The CEO
reminded the Board of the need to stay within the policies.

The Legal Counsel informed the Board that AFRINIC can’t withhold a genuine
request for IP allocations, it has to allocate, and if later it gets
evidence that the application was fraudulent, supported by evidence
collected, then it will be able to recover the resources as per the RSA.

The Board unanimously adopted the following resolution.
Resolution 201411.214 The Board resolves that; The authority is hereby
delegated to the CEO to use any available methods, at his discretion, to
authenticate resource allocation applications.

Few questionings to help the thinking:

1- Why was there a need for the Board at that time to get involved in a
routinely operational matter of a resource allocation?

2. Why was there a need for the Board to pass a resolution for something
suspicious that was already within the CEO’s authority?

3- Did we postpone the disputes to now ?

(*)https://www.afrinic.net/ast/pdf/2014-minutes/20141123-minutes.pdf


>
>
>
>>
>> In my opinion, -all- of these allocations are suspect, and they are made
>> moreso because neither Lu Heng nor his apparent primary spokesman here,
>> Owen DeLong, has seen fit to share with any of us any of the materials or
>> documentation that was used to provide the required justifications for
>> any of these allocations -originally- even though it is 100% clear that
>> all such records, dating back nearly five years ago to over eight years
>> ago, are no longer in any sense relevant to Cloud Innovation's -current-
>> business model or business operations.
>>
>> The time for dark secrets is over.  Lu Heng has elected to try his case
>> on the mailing lists and in the press.  OK.  Fine.  Then let's do that.
>>
>> The question of whether or not Lu Heng's -current- usage of his IP space
>> does or does not meet acceptable criteria is irrelevant if his -original-
>> justifications for the space were in any way inadequate or less than
>> truthful.  So let's see those original justifications and let the people
>> decide whether or not Lu Heng even deserved to be granted this much IPv4
>> space in the first place.
>>
>> Only Lu Heng can give us those original justification documents, if he so
>> chooses.  AFRINIC is still bound by confidentiality rules and thus cannot
>> legally provide them to any party outside of AFRINIC.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> rfg
>>
>> ___
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Owen,

I proved with public data that your claim that all Cloud Innovation Limited
IPv4 resources had been allocated with Adiel as CEO,  is FALSE and
misleading.  The 2x /11 were allocated by other CEO after Adiel had left.

Your follow on question is then irrelevant .

Forcing  people to respond to your question?  I noted if not mistaken, that
you have NOT responded until now to the question about the Conflict of
Interest.

--
Arnaud

Le mer. 4 août 2021 à 01:14, Owen DeLong  a écrit :

>
>
> On Aug 3, 2021, at 14:52 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
>
>
>
> Le jeu. 29 juil. 2021 à 02:44, Owen DeLong  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2021, at 16:57 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Oui en effet on se rappelle bien de cette période où le Board entrait
>> dans le Mico-management d'Afrinic, et jouait quasiment le Rôle du CEO, sans
>> que ce dernier ne réclame son droit, car ce sont eux qui l'ont recruté face
>> à un Candidat hors du commun, respect de la communauté Internet mondiale.
>> Il avait donc peut-être peur pour son poste.
>>
>>
>> The CEO at the time that our addresses were issued was none other than
>> Adiel Akplogan, so it’s not really clear to me who you think you are
>> targeting here, as I thought he was in place since the beginning of
>> AFRINIC. What early better candidate do you believe was passed up in hiring
>> Adiel?
>>
>
> Why are you in a hurry to mention *Adiel* for? Are you desperate again?
>
>
> A hurry? You are the one who brought up the CEO. I merely pointed out
> which CEO you were accusing. Why do you have a problem with this? I’ll note
> that you still have not answered my actual question.
>
> As I said before, history knows who were in the place when all resources
> were provided to CI. After some research, we can summarize as follows:
>
> Adiel was not the ceo who allocated all the numbers and we can see how
> the  allocations went 1st /12  2nd /12 and then the 1st /11 and 2nd /11 and
> all this happened within a 12 months time frame!
>
>
> Yes… And each with a valid justification and utilization data for previous
> resources duly and properly submitted.
>
> Thus, CI looted the numbers within a year after first CEO, Adiel Akplogan
> left Afrinic. *The cat was away and the mice played?*
>
>
> I take issue with your use of the term looted which implies a crime of
> theft during a war, riot, or other civil unrest. I do not believe such a
> civil unrest existed in AFRINIC at the time, nor do I believe that the
> resource registrations were obtained by theft.
>
> Here are the CI allocations mixed with officers at time of allocations for
> everyone to see and know truth
>
>
> Corrections inline:
>
> *2004 ceo Adiel Akplogan *
>
> *2013 July 24 1st /12  *
> *2013 July chair Viv Padayatchy *
> *2014 September Adiel Akplogan resigned *
> *2014 September chair Sunday Folayan*
> *2014 December 01 2nd /12 *
> *2014 December 31 acting ceo Patrisse (Invalid because he is a resident of
> Mauritius and thus prohibited by bylaws from being CEO)*
> *2014 December chair Sunday Folayan *
> *2015 December 22 1st /11 *
> *2015 December ceo Alan Barrett *
> *2015 December chair Sunday Folayan*
> *2016 September 23 2nd /11*
> *2016 ceo Alan Barrett *
> *2016 chair Sunday Folayan*
>
>
> So we have, according to you, a single /12 issued under Adiel, a /12 and a
> /11 issued under Patrisse, and a /11 issued under Alan Barrett.
>
> I’m trying to get exact issue dates to confirm whether your chronology
> works or not, but even if it does, are you claiming that Patrisse and/or
> Alan were, in some way, corrupt or suborned improper allocations by the
> registry? That’s a pretty serious accusation and I’d say you should have
> some pretty strong evidence to back it up. Further, you still haven’t
> answered the question as to which candidate you feel was passed up for CEO
> who would somehow have not issued these allocations or why.
>
>
> Some Board Directors 2014 - 2017
> *2013 - 2018 Sunday Folayan*
> *2014 - 2017 Andrew Alston*
> *2009 - 2015 Mark Elkins*
> *2014 - 2017 Kris Seeburn*
> *2013 - 2018 Haitham El Nakhal*
>
> The full details are on Afrinic web site
>
>
> You are mistaking “changed:” date (last update) for “issued:” date (not
> published).
>
> Owen
>
>
> —-
> *inetnum:   154.80.0.0  154.95.255.255   /12 *
>
> netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-I
>
> descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd
>
> changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net *20130724*
>
>
> *inetnum: 45.192.0.0 - 45.207.255.255   /12 *
>
> netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-I
>
> descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd
>
> changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net *20141201*
>
>
> *inetnum:156.224.0.0 -156.255.255.255 /11 *
>
> netname:CloudInnovation-infrastructure
>
> descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd
>
> changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net *20151222*
>
>
>   *inetnum:154.192.0.0 - 154.223.255.255 /11 *
>
> netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-II changed:
> hostmas...@afrinic.net *20160923*
>
>
> *board announced Adiel's 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Aug 5, 2021, at 04:44 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
> 
> Dear AfriNIC's Community, 
> 
> Please see my comments below, inline...
> 
> Le mardi 3 août 2021, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> 
> a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Aug 2, 2021, at 00:03 , Sylvain Baya > > wrote:
>> 
>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>> 
>> Please see my comments below, inline...
>> 
>> Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong > > a écrit :
>> 
>>> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>>> 
>>> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
>>> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> a 
>>> écrit :
>>> 
 
 
 [...]
 
>>> 
>>> You’re not answering the question I asked…
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Owen,
>>> Thanks for your email, brother!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing 
>>> addresses without providing connectivity
>>> services is not?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ...you might have forgotten about a simple notion, 
>>> called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
>>>  been refered out there as *Reservations*.
>> 
>> I have not forgotten, but we are not talking about reservation. 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Owen,
>> Thanks to take time to reply to my email, brother.
>> 
>> ...so, *we*! i assume the same *we* you usually 
>> use to call your team to support your personal  interpretation of the facts?
> 
> No, we is you and I, the people engaged in this particular conversational
> thread.
>  
>   
> 
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your clarification, brother.
> 
> ...so, you try to impose to all others a particular 
> theme?

??? I don’t try to impose anything. I simply made a statement about
the nature of the items you and I were discussing. They are not reservations
by the meaning contained any AFRINIC governing document.

> Please, sir, how can i be removed from your pool?

I am very confused here. What pool do you speak of?

You made a statement claiming that cloud innovations leases
were reservations and then based other conclusions on this
purported fact. I merely pointed out that the subject matter
that you and I (we) were discussing was not, in fact, a case
of “reservations”.

You then went down a very bizarre tangent related to how I was
defining we, making an invalid assumption about it and then turning
my response clarifying same into some sort of accusation that
I was somehow being coercive.

I really cannot understand your reasoning here.

>> Btw, you are entitled to your own opinion.
>> 
>> ...let's, at least, agree to disagree :-/ 
>>  
>> 
>> We are talking about deployment on an actual
>> host connected to the internet for legitimate use. 
>>  
>> 
>> ...again, *we*:=you+your_supporting_team, brother?
>> 
>> For what it's worth, in order to lease community's 
>> ressources such as INRs, one shall *reserve* it first;
> 
> Um, that’s true whether one is leasing the INRs with or
>  
> 
> Thanks to finally getting my point: you practice 
> leasing on INRs, then you violate the RSA+CPM.

Not sure how you figure that…

ALL LIRs lease INRs. Many do it in relation to also providing
connectivity services. Cloud Innovation also does it in relation
to providing connectivity services in some (but not all) cases.

> ...because you have to *reserve*, given that you don't have any network to 
> address hosts on or 
> to define any administrative boundaries for or; 
> so any distinctive routing policy to document...

Not true. We (Cloud Innovation) have customers just like any other LIR.
We (Cloud Innovation) assign addresses to them for use on internet
connected hosts, just like any other LIR. The only distinction between
us (Cloud Innovation) and most other LIRs is that we will do so regardless
of whether we are the provider of that connectivity or not.

This is not a reservation. We do not hold the addresses in reserve
for them during a period of time when they are not deployed on actual
hosts (which is what a reservation would be).
 
> without connnectivity services attached, so you have
> either pointed out how we are identical to every other
> LIR, or, you have both pointed this out _AND_ called
> into question the standard practice of every LIR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...straw man fallacy?

Not to the best of my knowledge.
 
> I’m not sure which is intended.
> 
>> otherwise, any of the end-users/clients shall come 
>> to the Registration Service to request the needed 
>> INRs; sure to find some there...and you know it: 
> 
> We don’t do anything to interfere with or prevent end-users
> or clients from seeking internet number resources from any
> other source.
> 
> 
> ...please, sir, could you share your stats on the number of orgs, you have 
> helped to become LIR 
> since the time your org shipted from LIR to INRs 
> seller? mini-RIR? or Global LIR?

No. Doing so would violate the confidentiality of my clients and is not 
material to any
legitimate discussion here.

> RFC7020 

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Please see my comments below, inline...

Le mardi 3 août 2021, Owen DeLong  a écrit :

>
>
> On Aug 2, 2021, at 00:03 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>
> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>
> Please see my comments below, inline...
>
> Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong  a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>>
>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>>
>> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
>> community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>

> [...]



>>> You’re not answering the question I asked…
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Owen,
>> Thanks for your email, brother!
>>
>>
>>
>>> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing
>>> addresses without providing connectivity
>>> services is not?
>>>
>>>
>> ...you might have forgotten about a simple notion,
>> called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
>>  been refered out there as *Reservations*.
>>
>>
>> I have not forgotten, but we are not talking about reservation.
>>
>>
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks to take time to reply to my email, brother.
>
> ...so, *we*! i assume the same *we* you usually
> use to call your team to support your personal  interpretation of the
> facts?
>
>
> No, we is you and I, the people engaged in this particular conversational
> thread.
>
>
>

Hi Owen,
Thanks for your clarification, brother.

...so, you try to impose to all others a particular
theme?

Please, sir, how can i be removed from your pool?



>
> Btw, you are entitled to your own opinion.
>
> ...let's, at least, agree to disagree :-/
>
>
>>
>> We are talking about deployment on an actual
>> host connected to the internet for legitimate use.
>>
>>
>
> ...again, *we*:=you+your_supporting_team, brother?
>
> For what it's worth, in order to lease community's
> ressources such as INRs, one shall *reserve* it first;
>
>
> Um, that’s true whether one is leasing the INRs with or
>


Thanks to finally getting my point: you practice
leasing on INRs, then you violate the RSA+CPM.

...because you have to *reserve*, given that you don't have any network to
address hosts on or
to define any administrative boundaries for or;
so any distinctive routing policy to document...



> without connnectivity services attached, so you have
> either pointed out how we are identical to every other
> LIR, or, you have both pointed this out _AND_ called
> into question the standard practice of every LIR.
>
>

...straw man fallacy?



> I’m not sure which is intended.
>
> otherwise, any of the end-users/clients shall come
> to the Registration Service to request the needed
> INRs; sure to find some there...and you know it:
>
>
> We don’t do anything to interfere with or prevent end-users
> or clients from seeking internet number resources from any
> other source.
>
>
...please, sir, could you share your stats on the number of orgs, you have
helped to become LIR
since the time your org shipted from LIR to INRs
seller? mini-RIR? or Global LIR? RFC7020 states:

~°~
[...]

In
  cases where LIRs span multiple regions, those LIRs have
  established relationships with multiple RIRs.

[...]
~°~

...full part:

~°~

Local IRs

  Local Internet Registries (LIRs) are established through a
  relationship with the body from which they received their
  addresses, typically the RIR that serves the region in which they
  operate, a parent LIR, or other number-allocating entity.  In
  cases where LIRs span multiple regions, those LIRs have
  established relationships with multiple RIRs.  LIRs perform IP
  address allocation services for their customers, typically ISPs,
  end users, or child LIRs (also known as "sub-LIRs").

~°~



...this comes from your client's website:

~°~
[...] PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
RIR Membership Management Service: Own Your IP Assets
RIR MEMBERSHIP MANAGEMENT SERVICE

LARUS will help you to become a RIR member and obtain your own IPv4
addresses for now and your future needs. With this specialized end-to-end
solution, you will minimize the utilization risk, financial risk and policy
risk. The IPv4 addresses become your asset and generate extra value for you.
[...]
Much Lower Cost

The cost will be as low as 1/10 of the cost of getting the IP addresses
from the transfer market. They will become your asset and generate revenue
with new business and service. Owning your IP addresses will protect you
from the surge of IP address cost in the future.
[...]
~°~





>
>
> those must be incorporated within the AfriNIC's
> service region...they would save a lot of money
> comparing to what could be otherwise payed to
> an intermediary *LIR*...not *GIR*...
>
>
> Many LIRs operate on a global scale, including, for
>



~°~
[...]

In
  cases where LIRs span multiple regions, those LIRs have
  established relationships with multiple RIRs.

[...]
~°~




> example, Verizon, 

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Please see my comments below, inline...


Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <
akin.akinfe...@uniosun.edu.ng> a écrit :

> +1 Sylvain!
>
>
Hi Timothy,
Thanks for your support, brother :-)


>
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:48 AM Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>
>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>>
>>
>>> > [...]
>>>
>>>
>> How come that INRs management becomes a
>> matter of such secrets?
>>
>> Please Jordi or any other volunteer, let me know if
>> you are willing to contribute to draft a DPP to
>> remove the possibility of keeping such, apparently,
>> unjustified secrets.
>>
>
> I'm willing to contribute!
>


...you are welcome! we have started here [1][2].

If you aren't already subscribed to the RDP
(Resource Policy Discussion) mailinglist [3],
please do it first then share your thoughts.
__
[1]: 
[2]: see the thread view:

[3]: 

...if the project remains, you will be then added
as a DPP co-author. Maybe you want to first read
the PDP (Policy Development Process) [4]?
__
[4]: CPM section 3.0:


...i look forward to meeting you on the RPD list.

Shalom,
--sb.



>
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> > [...]
>>
>>
>>>
> Best regards,
> <.ta/>
>


-- 
--

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
Subscribe to Mailing List: 
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:

>> The names of board members or board chairmen on these dates is perfectly
>> irrelevant because the board never reviewed any of these allocations,
>> or any of the documents or other materials that were used to justify them.
>> The allocations were all made as a result of "staff" decisions, not the
>> board.
>
>You can't be totally sure on this one, because it was the period we saw the
>Board playing the CEO Prerogatives, and entering in the micromanagement of
>AFRINIC, remember.

Even Owen Delong, Lu Heng's unoffical chief lobbyist, as admitted that
at least two of these four allocations where made without ANY review
by the board at the time, and indeed, if you look back at the archives,
and at the mailing list discussions that took place at the time, it was
agreed at the time and in public that some of these allocations were made
strictly and only on the basis of "staff" decisions, and that the board
was not involved in the decision process AT ALL.

I have personally interviewed knowlegable sources who have asserted to
me privately that -none- of the four Cloud Innovation requests for IPv4
address space were ever reviewed by the board.  So unless you have some
different and conflicting information which might suggest that that is
not true, I am going to go with that for now all four CI allocations
were made strictly and only on the basis of "staff" decisions.  That is
my opinion, based on my interviews of knowlegable sources.

>> The first two of these allocations were granted under CEO Akplogan, who
>> did not leave his CEO position until January 31, 2015:
>>
>> https://afrinic.net/20140917-ceo-adiel-akplogan-resign
>
>I'm OK with this one too, but he already resigned before the allocation,
>isn't it?

Yes, Akplogan had resigned as of September 17, 2014, but he was still sitting
in the captain's chair and he was still calling the shots until January 31,
2015.  The 45.192.0.0/12 block was allocated to Cloud Innovation on
December 1, 2014, after Akplogan's resignation but before his resignation
became effective.

https://afrinic.net/20140917-ceo-adiel-akplogan-resign

If the ship of AFRINIC hit an iceberg... or perhaps multiple icebergs...
and if it started taking on water, and if the lifeboats had to be deployed
at any time prior to January 31, 2015, then I think it is clear who must
ultimately be held responsible for that.  Ignorance is never a valid
excuse for a captain not to be aware that his ship is taking on water,
especially when the lives or fortunes of so many others are depeding on
him being awake and alert.

>> The two later allocations were granted under CEO Barrett.
>
>If do so, how come New CEO gave 2 of /11 in such a short time?

Good question!  Maybe if we ever get to see the original justifications
we may get to find out.  But it appears that Lu Heng is not eager for
anyone to see those documents, and I guess that he also doesn't want to
even have to show those documents in court, which might explain why he
and his many associates and sock puppets are so eager to drive AFRINIC
into a early grave, before things ever even get that far in court where
he might have to show his whole hand.

>> ALL of the allocations were made during a time period when Ernest
>> Byaruhanga was a high-ranking officer of AFRINIC.
>
>You're right on this one too.

You say that as if there was ever any doubt.

I'm not the guy who has been lying about stuff or hiding stuff.  I am the
guy who has found and told the straight truth, from the beginning.

I can do that because I have no personal financial stake in any of these
matters.  My only motivation is to see justice prevail.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Aug 3, 2021, at 14:52 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le jeu. 29 juil. 2021 à 02:44, Owen DeLong  > a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Jul 28, 2021, at 16:57 , Arnaud AMELINA > > wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Oui en effet on se rappelle bien de cette période où le Board entrait dans 
>> le Mico-management d'Afrinic, et jouait quasiment le Rôle du CEO, sans que 
>> ce dernier ne réclame son droit, car ce sont eux qui l'ont recruté face à un 
>> Candidat hors du commun, respect de la communauté Internet mondiale. Il 
>> avait donc peut-être peur pour son poste. 
> 
> The CEO at the time that our addresses were issued was none other than Adiel 
> Akplogan, so it’s not really clear to me who you think you are targeting 
> here, as I thought he was in place since the beginning of AFRINIC. What early 
> better candidate do you believe was passed up in hiring Adiel?
> 
> Why are you in a hurry to mention Adiel for? Are you desperate again?

A hurry? You are the one who brought up the CEO. I merely pointed out which CEO 
you were accusing. Why do you have a problem with this? I’ll note that you 
still have not answered my actual question.

> As I said before, history knows who were in the place when all resources were 
> provided to CI. After some research, we can summarize as follows:
> 
> Adiel was not the ceo who allocated all the numbers and we can see how the  
> allocations went 1st /12  2nd /12 and then the 1st /11 and 2nd /11 and all 
> this happened within a 12 months time frame!

Yes… And each with a valid justification and utilization data for previous 
resources duly and properly submitted.

> Thus, CI looted the numbers within a year after first CEO, Adiel Akplogan 
> left Afrinic. The cat was away and the mice played?

I take issue with your use of the term looted which implies a crime of theft 
during a war, riot, or other civil unrest. I do not believe such a civil unrest 
existed in AFRINIC at the time, nor do I believe that the resource 
registrations were obtained by theft.

> Here are the CI allocations mixed with officers at time of allocations for 
> everyone to see and know truth 
> 
Corrections inline:
> 2004 ceo Adiel Akplogan 
> 2013 July 24 1st /12  
> 2013 July chair Viv Padayatchy 
> 2014 September Adiel Akplogan resigned 
> 2014 September chair Sunday Folayan
> 2014 December 01 2nd /12 
> 2014 December 31 acting ceo Patrisse (Invalid because he is a resident of 
> Mauritius and thus prohibited by bylaws from being CEO)
> 2014 December chair Sunday Folayan 
> 2015 December 22 1st /11 
> 2015 December ceo Alan Barrett 
> 2015 December chair Sunday Folayan
> 2016 September 23 2nd /11
> 2016 ceo Alan Barrett 
> 2016 chair Sunday Folayan

So we have, according to you, a single /12 issued under Adiel, a /12 and a /11 
issued under Patrisse, and a /11 issued under Alan Barrett.

I’m trying to get exact issue dates to confirm whether your chronology works or 
not, but even if it does, are you claiming that Patrisse and/or Alan were, in 
some way, corrupt or suborned improper allocations by the registry? That’s a 
pretty serious accusation and I’d say you should have some pretty strong 
evidence to back it up. Further, you still haven’t answered the question as to 
which candidate you feel was passed up for CEO who would somehow have not 
issued these allocations or why.

> 
> Some Board Directors 2014 - 2017  
> 2013 - 2018 Sunday Folayan
> 2014 - 2017 Andrew Alston
> 2009 - 2015 Mark Elkins
> 2014 - 2017 Kris Seeburn
> 2013 - 2018 Haitham El Nakhal
> 
> The full details are on Afrinic web site 

You are mistaking “changed:” date (last update) for “issued:” date (not 
published).

Owen


> —-
> inetnum:   154.80.0.0  154.95.255.255   /12 
> 
> netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-I 
> 
> descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd 
> 
> changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net  
> 20130724  
> 
> 
> inetnum: 45.192.0.0 - 45.207.255.255   /12 
> 
> netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-I 
> 
> descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd 
> 
> changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net  
> 20141201   
> 
> 
> inetnum:156.224.0.0 -156.255.255.255 /11 
> 
> netname:CloudInnovation-infrastructure 
> 
> descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd 
> 
> changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net  
> 20151222
> 
> 
>   inetnum:154.192.0.0 - 154.223.255.255 /11 
> 
> netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-II changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net 
>  20160923  
> 
> 
> board announced Adiel's depart September 2014, effective 31/01/2015   
> 
> https://afrinic.net/20140917-ceo-adiel-akplogan-resign 
> 
> 
> All this for the record and education. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> --
> Arnaud 
> ... 
> 
> 

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

Arnaud,

I assure you that I write each and every message I post by myself.

The so called evidence others have produced is not evidence of anything other 
than their own misapplication of the text in question.

I have refuted each and every piece of so-called evidence in a clear and 
consistent manner. Even you agree that there is consistency
to my arguments.

You claim that they are my errors of understanding, I believe them to be yours.

There are people who agree with me and people who appear to somehow agree with 
you about this.

I have broken down the context, meaning, and structure of each and every 
so-called element in an effort to aid in the plain text understanding of the 
slices of the various governing documents.

Interestingly, people on your side just keep citing the same provisions, 
without making any effort to explain how it is they come to the conclusion that 
their meaning is so different from their wording. I have at least shown how I 
come to the conclusion that their wording and meaning are aligned in the manner 
I have expressed.

I have long doubted the value in replying to you, yet I do my best to respect 
you enough to attempt to provide a cogent rebuttal to each of your arguments. 
To the best of my knowledge, I have never engaged in ad hominem against you or 
any of your colleagues, despite your repeated use of ad hominem in an effort to 
imply that I am somehow incorrect or untrustworthy.

Please, let us proceed as gentlemen with mutual respect. I don’t agree with 
you. I think you are badly misguided in your interpretation of the policy 
documents. Nonetheless, i have at all times treated you with respect and I have 
not once questioned your legitimate allegiance to the community. Even if you 
believe that my opinion is not correct, I think you are hard pressed to make 
any valid claim that I am not legitimately representing what I believe to be 
the true interests of the community and the internet as a whole.

Owen


> On Aug 3, 2021, at 00:02 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
> 
> Chers membres d la communauté
> Ne voyez-vous pas que Owen se paie notre tête (expression francophone 
> j'ignore si ça existe en anglais). Il répète le même refrain tout le temps 
> comme Fernando l'a fait remarquer. Malgré toutes les preuves à lui fourni par 
> tous les autres contributeurs il répète les même choses, maintenant je viens 
> à douter que même lui n'est pas auteur de ses différents textes qu'il postes, 
> parce que sans aucune cohérence avec les autres contributions qui lui ont 
> répondu. Rien que de la répétition argumentaires comme si nous n'avons que ça 
> à faire. Eux , ils sont payer pour produire ces genres de documents toute la 
> journée, lui et ses echochambers. Je ne juge même plus utile de le lui 
> répondre , tellement il répète les mêmes erreurs de compréhension. On dirait 
> qu'il veut se convaincre que ce qu'il dit est juste et véridique, car 
> lui-même n'en est pas encore convaincu.
> 
> English 
> 
> Dear community members
> 
>  Can't you see that Owen is "paying our head " (French expression I don't 
> know if it exists in English).  He repeats the same refrain all the time as 
> Fernando pointed out.  Despite all the evidence provided to him by all the 
> other contributors, he repeats the same things, now I doubt that even him, is 
> not the author of the various texts that he posts, because without any 
> consistency with the others contributions answering him.  Nothing but 
> repeating arguments as if we have only that to do.  They are paid to produce 
> these kinds of documents all day long, with his echochambers.  I no longer 
> even consider it useful to answer him, because he is repeating the same 
> errors of understanding.  It looks like he wants to convince himself that 
> what he is saying is right and true, because himself is not yet convinced.
> 
> --
> Arnaud
> 
> Le mar. 3 août 2021 à 04:00, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> a 
> écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Aug 2, 2021, at 00:03 , Sylvain Baya > > wrote:
>> 
>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>> 
>> Please see my comments below, inline...
>> 
>> Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong > > a écrit :
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>>> 
>>> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
>>> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> a 
>>> écrit :
>>> 
 
 
 [...]
 
>>> 
>>> You’re not answering the question I asked…
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Owen,
>>> Thanks for your email, brother!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing 
>>> addresses without providing connectivity
>>> services is not?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ...you might have forgotten about a simple notion, 
>>> called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
>>>  been refered out there as *Reservations*.
>> 
>> I have 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Le mar. 3 août 2021 à 23:09, Ronald F. Guilmette  a
écrit :

> In message <
> cagdmr_cl96mmufnsdq8k2pssdrsyw1jiz_k2nshisybe7s5...@mail.gmail.com>
> Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
>
> >As I said before, history knows who were in the place when all resources
> >were provided to CI. After some research, we can summarize as follows:
> >
> >Adiel was not the ceo who allocated all the numbers and we can see how the
> >allocations went 1st /12  2nd /12 and then the 1st /11 and 2nd /11 and all
> >this happened within a 12 months time frame!
>
> I'm sorry, but your information is just not accurate.  The version history
> of each block provides the correct information about the original
> allocation dates, and it is as follows:
>
> 2013-07-24 -- 154.80.0.0/12
> 2014-12-01 -- 45.192.0.0/12
> 2015-12-22 -- 156.224.0.0/11
> 2016-09-23 -- 154.192.0.0/11
>
> Do you disagree with this timeline?  If so, on what basis?
>

No you're right on this one, thanks for the correction, apologize fort the
mistake.


> Th names of board members or board chairmen on these dates is perfectly
> irrelevant because the board never reviewed any of these allocations,
> or any of the documents or other materials that were used to justify them.
> The allocations were all made as a result of "staff" decisions, not the
> board.
>

You can't be totally sure on this one, because it was the period we saw the
Board playing the CEO Prerogatives, and entering in the micromanagement of
AFRINIC, remember.


> The first two of these allocations were granted under CEO Akplogan, who
> did not leave his CEO position until January 31, 2015:
>
> https://afrinic.net/20140917-ceo-adiel-akplogan-resign



I'm OK with this one too, but he already resigned before the allocation,
isn't it?


>
> The two later allocations were granted under CEO Barrett.
>

If do so, how come New CEO gave 2 of /11 in such a short time?

>
> ALL of the allocations were made during a time period when Ernest
> Byaruhanga
> was a high-ranking officer of AFRINIC.
>


You're right on this one too.


>
>
> In my opinion, -all- of these allocations are suspect, and they are made
> moreso because neither Lu Heng nor his apparent primary spokesman here,
> Owen DeLong, has seen fit to share with any of us any of the materials or
> documentation that was used to provide the required justifications for
> any of these allocations -originally- even though it is 100% clear that
> all such records, dating back nearly five years ago to over eight years
> ago, are no longer in any sense relevant to Cloud Innovation's -current-
> business model or business operations.
>
> The time for dark secrets is over.  Lu Heng has elected to try his case
> on the mailing lists and in the press.  OK.  Fine.  Then let's do that.
>
> The question of whether or not Lu Heng's -current- usage of his IP space
> does or does not meet acceptable criteria is irrelevant if his -original-
> justifications for the space were in any way inadequate or less than
> truthful.  So let's see those original justifications and let the people
> decide whether or not Lu Heng even deserved to be granted this much IPv4
> space in the first place.
>
> Only Lu Heng can give us those original justification documents, if he so
> chooses.  AFRINIC is still bound by confidentiality rules and thus cannot
> legally provide them to any party outside of AFRINIC.
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:

>As I said before, history knows who were in the place when all resources
>were provided to CI. After some research, we can summarize as follows:
>
>Adiel was not the ceo who allocated all the numbers and we can see how the
>allocations went 1st /12  2nd /12 and then the 1st /11 and 2nd /11 and all
>this happened within a 12 months time frame!

I'm sorry, but your information is just not accurate.  The version history
of each block provides the correct information about the original
allocation dates, and it is as follows:

2013-07-24 -- 154.80.0.0/12
2014-12-01 -- 45.192.0.0/12
2015-12-22 -- 156.224.0.0/11
2016-09-23 -- 154.192.0.0/11

Do you disagree with this timeline?  If so, on what basis?

Th names of board members or board chairmen on these dates is perfectly
irrelevant because the board never reviewed any of these allocations,
or any of the documents or other materials that were used to justify them.
The allocations were all made as a result of "staff" decisions, not the
board.

The first two of these allocations were granted under CEO Akplogan, who
did not leave his CEO position until January 31, 2015:

https://afrinic.net/20140917-ceo-adiel-akplogan-resign

The two later allocations were granted under CEO Barrett.

ALL of the allocations were made during a time period when Ernest Byaruhanga
was a high-ranking officer of AFRINIC.

In my opinion, -all- of these allocations are suspect, and they are made
moreso because neither Lu Heng nor his apparent primary spokesman here,
Owen DeLong, has seen fit to share with any of us any of the materials or
documentation that was used to provide the required justifications for
any of these allocations -originally- even though it is 100% clear that
all such records, dating back nearly five years ago to over eight years
ago, are no longer in any sense relevant to Cloud Innovation's -current-
business model or business operations.

The time for dark secrets is over.  Lu Heng has elected to try his case
on the mailing lists and in the press.  OK.  Fine.  Then let's do that.

The question of whether or not Lu Heng's -current- usage of his IP space
does or does not meet acceptable criteria is irrelevant if his -original-
justifications for the space were in any way inadequate or less than
truthful.  So let's see those original justifications and let the people
decide whether or not Lu Heng even deserved to be granted this much IPv4
space in the first place.

Only Lu Heng can give us those original justification documents, if he so
chooses.  AFRINIC is still bound by confidentiality rules and thus cannot
legally provide them to any party outside of AFRINIC.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Le jeu. 29 juil. 2021 à 02:44, Owen DeLong  a écrit :

>
>
> On Jul 28, 2021, at 16:57 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
> Oui en effet on se rappelle bien de cette période où le Board entrait dans
> le Mico-management d'Afrinic, et jouait quasiment le Rôle du CEO, sans que
> ce dernier ne réclame son droit, car ce sont eux qui l'ont recruté face à
> un Candidat hors du commun, respect de la communauté Internet mondiale. Il
> avait donc peut-être peur pour son poste.
>
>
> The CEO at the time that our addresses were issued was none other than
> Adiel Akplogan, so it’s not really clear to me who you think you are
> targeting here, as I thought he was in place since the beginning of
> AFRINIC. What early better candidate do you believe was passed up in hiring
> Adiel?
>

Why are you in a hurry to mention *Adiel* for? Are you desperate again?

As I said before, history knows who were in the place when all resources
were provided to CI. After some research, we can summarize as follows:

Adiel was not the ceo who allocated all the numbers and we can see how the
allocations went 1st /12  2nd /12 and then the 1st /11 and 2nd /11 and all
this happened within a 12 months time frame!

Thus, CI looted the numbers within a year after first CEO, Adiel Akplogan
left Afrinic. *The cat was away and the mice played?*

Here are the CI allocations mixed with officers at time of allocations for
everyone to see and know truth

*2013 July 24 1st /12  *
*2013 July ceo Adiel Akplogan *
*2013 July chair Viv Padayatchy *
*2014 September Adiel Akplogan resigned *
*2014 September chair Sunday Folayan*
*2014 December 01 2nd /12 *
*2014 December acting ceo Patrisse*
*2014 December chair Sunday Folayan *
*2015 December 22 1st /11 *
*2015 December ceo Alan Barrett *
*2015 December chair Sunday Folayan*
*2016 September 23 2nd /11*
*2016 ceo Alan Barrett *
*2016 chair Sunday Folayan*

Some Board Directors 2014 - 2017
*2013 - 2018 Sunday Folayan*
*2014 - 2017 Andrew Alston*
*2009 - 2015 Mark Elkins*
*2014 - 2017 Kris Seeburn*
*2013 - 2018 Haitham El Nakhal*

The full details are on Afrinic web site
—-
*inetnum:   154.80.0.0  154.95.255.255   /12 *

netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-I

descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd

changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net *20130724*


*inetnum: 45.192.0.0 - 45.207.255.255   /12 *

netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-I

descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd

changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net *20141201*


*inetnum:156.224.0.0 -156.255.255.255 /11 *

netname:CloudInnovation-infrastructure

descr:  Cloud Innovation Ltd

changed:hostmas...@afrinic.net *20151222*


  *inetnum:154.192.0.0 - 154.223.255.255 /11 *

netname:Cloud-Innovation-v4-II changed:
hostmas...@afrinic.net *20160923*


*board announced Adiel's depart September 2014, effective 31/01/2015 *

*https://afrinic.net/20140917-ceo-adiel-akplogan-resign
*

All this for the record and education.

Regards

--
Arnaud
...


>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Chers membres d la communauté
Ne voyez-vous pas que Owen se paie notre tête (expression francophone
j'ignore si ça existe en anglais). Il répète le même refrain tout le temps
comme Fernando l'a fait remarquer. Malgré toutes les preuves à lui fourni
par tous les autres contributeurs il répète les même choses, maintenant je
viens à douter que même lui n'est pas auteur de ses différents textes qu'il
postes, parce que sans aucune cohérence avec les autres contributions qui
lui ont répondu. Rien que de la répétition argumentaires comme si nous
n'avons que ça à faire. Eux , ils sont payer pour produire ces genres de
documents toute la journée, lui et ses echochambers. Je ne juge même plus
utile de le lui répondre , tellement il répète les mêmes erreurs de
compréhension. On dirait qu'il veut se convaincre que ce qu'il dit est
juste et véridique, car lui-même n'en est pas encore convaincu.

English

Dear community members

 Can't you see that Owen is "paying our head " (French expression I don't
know if it exists in English).  He repeats the same refrain all the time as
Fernando pointed out.  Despite all the evidence provided to him by all the
other contributors, he repeats the same things, now I doubt that even him,
is not the author of the various texts that he posts, because without any
consistency with the others contributions answering him.  Nothing but
repeating arguments as if we have only that to do.  They are paid to
produce these kinds of documents all day long, with his echochambers.  I no
longer even consider it useful to answer him, because he is repeating the
same errors of understanding.  It looks like he wants to convince himself
that what he is saying is right and true, because himself is not yet
convinced.

--
Arnaud

Le mar. 3 août 2021 à 04:00, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :

>
>
> On Aug 2, 2021, at 00:03 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>
> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>
> Please see my comments below, inline...
>
> Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong  a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>>
>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>>
>> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
>> community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :
>>
>>>
>>>

> [...]



>>> You’re not answering the question I asked…
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Owen,
>> Thanks for your email, brother!
>>
>>
>>
>>> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing
>>> addresses without providing connectivity
>>> services is not?
>>>
>>>
>> ...you might have forgotten about a simple notion,
>> called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
>>  been refered out there as *Reservations*.
>>
>>
>> I have not forgotten, but we are not talking about reservation.
>>
>>
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks to take time to reply to my email, brother.
>
> ...so, *we*! i assume the same *we* you usually
> use to call your team to support your personal  interpretation of the
> facts?
>
>
> No, we is you and I, the people engaged in this particular conversational
> thread.
>
>
> Btw, you are entitled to your own opinion.
>
> ...let's, at least, agree to disagree :-/
>
>
>>
>> We are talking about deployment on an actual
>> host connected to the internet for legitimate use.
>>
>>
>
> ...again, *we*:=you+your_supporting_team, brother?
>
> For what it's worth, in order to lease community's
> ressources such as INRs, one shall *reserve* it first;
>
>
> Um, that’s true whether one is leasing the INRs with or
> without connnectivity services attached, so you have
> either pointed out how we are identical to every other
> LIR, or, you have both pointed this out _AND_ called
> into question the standard practice of every LIR.
>
> I’m not sure which is intended.
>
> otherwise, any of the end-users/clients shall come
> to the Registration Service to request the needed
> INRs; sure to find some there...and you know it:
>
>
> We don’t do anything to interfere with or prevent end-users
> or clients from seeking internet number resources from any
> other source.
>
> those must be incorporated within the AfriNIC's
> service region...they would save a lot of money
> comparing to what could be otherwise payed to
> an intermediary *LIR*...not *GIR*...
>
>
> Many LIRs operate on a global scale, including, for
> example, Verizon, Hurricane Electric, Akamai, and
> more. The term LIR is primarily used not so much to
> indicate some diminutive scope as to provide a convenient
> distinction from RIR (regional, quasi-continental) or
> NIR (National).
>
> ...note that no AfriNIC's Resource Member is a GIR (Global Internet
> Registry) but all are LIRs (Local
> Internet Registries) established/approved to serve
> their local economic zone and free to deploy their business accross the
> whole AfriNIC's service
> region, wherever they can extend it; legally speaking.
>
>
> You are misunderstanding the nature of the term LIR here.
>
> There is nothing in AFRINIC’s governing documents 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Aug 2, 2021, at 00:03 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
> 
> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
> 
> Please see my comments below, inline...
> 
> Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong  > a écrit :
> 
> 
>> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya > > wrote:
>> 
>> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>> 
>> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
>> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> a 
>> écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>> 
>> You’re not answering the question I asked…
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Owen,
>> Thanks for your email, brother!
>> 
>>  
>> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing 
>> addresses without providing connectivity
>> services is not?
>> 
>> 
>> ...you might have forgotten about a simple notion, 
>> called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
>>  been refered out there as *Reservations*.
> 
> I have not forgotten, but we are not talking about reservation. 
> 
> 
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks to take time to reply to my email, brother.
> 
> ...so, *we*! i assume the same *we* you usually 
> use to call your team to support your personal  interpretation of the facts?

No, we is you and I, the people engaged in this particular conversational
thread.

> 
> Btw, you are entitled to your own opinion.
> 
> ...let's, at least, agree to disagree :-/ 
>  
> 
> We are talking about deployment on an actual
> host connected to the internet for legitimate use. 
>  
> 
> ...again, *we*:=you+your_supporting_team, brother?
> 
> For what it's worth, in order to lease community's 
> ressources such as INRs, one shall *reserve* it first;

Um, that’s true whether one is leasing the INRs with or
without connnectivity services attached, so you have
either pointed out how we are identical to every other
LIR, or, you have both pointed this out _AND_ called
into question the standard practice of every LIR.

I’m not sure which is intended.

> otherwise, any of the end-users/clients shall come 
> to the Registration Service to request the needed 
> INRs; sure to find some there...and you know it: 

We don’t do anything to interfere with or prevent end-users
or clients from seeking internet number resources from any
other source.

> those must be incorporated within the AfriNIC's 
> service region...they would save a lot of money 
> comparing to what could be otherwise payed to 
> an intermediary *LIR*...not *GIR*...

Many LIRs operate on a global scale, including, for
example, Verizon, Hurricane Electric, Akamai, and
more. The term LIR is primarily used not so much to
indicate some diminutive scope as to provide a convenient
distinction from RIR (regional, quasi-continental) or
NIR (National).

> ...note that no AfriNIC's Resource Member is a GIR (Global Internet Registry) 
> but all are LIRs (Local 
> Internet Registries) established/approved to serve 
> their local economic zone and free to deploy their business accross the whole 
> AfriNIC's service 
> region, wherever they can extend it; legally speaking.

You are misunderstanding the nature of the term LIR here.

There is nothing in AFRINIC’s governing documents which prohibits
its resource members from deploying their business across the entire
planet. If you believe that there is, please provide relevant citations
to the appropriate governing document(s).

> The difference… The only difference… Is that the
> connectivity service does not come from the same provider as the addresses.
> 
> 
> ...if...then, please see above!

If what?

> You seem to read the CPM selectively, if not why could you ignore the notion 
> of valid assignments 
> and SAW.

SAW applies to sub allocations made from one LIR to another. Cloud Innovation 
makes assignments
and does not make sub allocations, thus the SAW does not apply.

As to “valid assignments” where is it that you think these are defined? Which 
section of the CPM
do you think I have ignored in considering Cloud Innovations assignments valid?

> ...icymi, please see here: 
>  >

How is this relevant to this case?

5.5.1.1.3 is about transfers — Does not apply here.
5.5.1.2.3 is about efficiency. — Cloud Innovations utilization fraction is 
extremely efficient.
5.5.1.3 is about slow start — how AFRINIC goes about allocating to LIRs — Does 
not apply here.
5.5.1.4.1 is about utilization percentage required to request more space from 
AFRINIC — We are not applying for additional space, so this does not apply here.
5.5.1.4.2 is about reservations — No reservations are being made. In this 
context, the term reservation is used to reference
a situation where an LIR has set aside a group of addresses not 
actually deployed on hosts and attempts to claim that those
addresses set aside in that manner are utilized for the purposes of 
calculating the utilization percentage in 5.5.1.4.1.
Since 5.5.1.4.1 does not 

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Please see my comments below, inline...

Le samedi 31 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong  a écrit :

>
>
> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
>
> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>
> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
> community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>>>
 [...]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You’re not answering the question I asked…
>>
>>
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your email, brother!
>
>
>
>> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing
>> addresses without providing connectivity
>> services is not?
>>
>>
> ...you might have forgotten about a simple notion,
> called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
>  been refered out there as *Reservations*.
>
>
> I have not forgotten, but we are not talking about reservation.
>
>
Hi Owen,
Thanks to take time to reply to my email, brother.

...so, *we*! i assume the same *we* you usually
use to call your team to support your personal  interpretation of the facts?

Btw, you are entitled to your own opinion.

...let's, at least, agree to disagree :-/


>
> We are talking about deployment on an actual
> host connected to the internet for legitimate use.
>
>

...again, *we*:=you+your_supporting_team, brother?

For what it's worth, in order to lease community's
ressources such as INRs, one shall *reserve* it first;
 otherwise, any of the end-users/clients shall come
to the Registration Service to request the needed
INRs; sure to find some there...and you know it:
those must be incorporated within the AfriNIC's
service region...they would save a lot of money
comparing to what could be otherwise payed to
an intermediary *LIR*...not *GIR*...
...note that no AfriNIC's Resource Member is a GIR (Global Internet
Registry) but all are LIRs (Local
Internet Registries) established/approved to serve
their local economic zone and free to deploy their business accross the
whole AfriNIC's service
region, wherever they can extend it; legally speaking.


>
> The difference… The only difference… Is that the
> connectivity service does not come from the same provider as the addresses.
>
>
...if...then, please see above!

You seem to read the CPM selectively, if not why could you ignore the
notion of valid assignments
and SAW.

...icymi, please see here:


copy -> paste:

~°~

Yes! i took the responsibility to bring the CPM section 5.5 | IPv4 LIR/ISP
Allocations (5.5.1 Allocation policies and guidelines) to you, in case it
might have been a too hard task to go it the location of that content.
Please accept to read it...

...i did it with the naive expectation that it
could help the PDWG to move forward
on some recuring topics, such as
Internet number resources (at least for
IPv4 types) utilisation and responsibilities
thereof, within the AfriNIC's service region.

Therefore permit me to recommend the following subventions to your
particular attention:

¿°?
• 5.5.1.1.3 If an LIR plans to exchange or transfer address space, it needs
to contact AFRINIC so that the changes are properly registered.
• 5.5.1.2.3 Must show an existing efficient utilization of IP addresses
from their upstream provider.
• 5.5.1.3 Slow start mechanism for first allocations
• 5.5.1.4.1 An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about 80% of
all the address space currently allocated to it has been used in valid
assignments and/or sub-allocations.
• 5.5.1.4.2 Reservations are not considered as valid assignments or
sub-allocations.
• 5.5.1.7 Documentation
• 5.5.1.8 Network infrastructure (of LIR) vs End-User networks
• 5.5.1.9 Utilisation
• 5.5.1.10 Reservations not supported
• 5.5.1.11 Validity of an assignment
• 5.5.1.13 Sub-Allocation Window (SAW)
• 5.5.1.13.1 A sub-allocation window (SAW) refers to the maximum number of
IPv4 addresses that the LIR may sub-allocate to the end-users without
seeking approval from AFRINIC.
• 5.5.1.13.2 AFRINIC will review sub-allocation made by the LIR's using
their SAW to ensure that policies are followed correctly.
• 5.5.1.13.3 Below are a few guidelines for the SAW:
• 5.5.1.14 Recordkeeping by LIRs
¿°?

Please let me know if it was a bad initiative :-/

Thanks.


Source: 
~°~



> Please read again the CPM at section 5:
>
> ~°~
> [...]
> • 5.5.1.4.1 An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about 80% of
> all the address space currently allocated to it has been used in valid
> assignments and/or sub-allocations.
> • 5.5.1.4.2 *Reservations* are not considered as valid assignments or
> sub-allocations.
> [...]
> ~°~
>
>
> Yep… that’s not a prohibition on valid assignment and/or sub allocation
> independent of
> connectivity services, that’s a prohibition of addresses not being
> attached to hosts.
>
>

...don't divide/separate the tools, please.
It's not allowed. The implementers use it all:
Bylaws+RSA+CPM to the good of the AfriNIC's
service region.
Do you want to 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 30, 2021, at 15:14 , Sylvain Baya  wrote:
> 
> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
> 
> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> a 
> écrit :
> 
>> 
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
> 
> You’re not answering the question I asked…
> 
> 
> Hi Owen,
> Thanks for your email, brother!
> 
>  
> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing 
> addresses without providing connectivity
> services is not?
> 
> 
> ...you might have forgotten about a simple notion, 
> called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
>  been refered out there as *Reservations*.

I have not forgotten, but we are not talking about reservation. We are talking 
about deployment on an actual
host connected to the internet for legitimate use. The difference… The only 
difference… Is that the
connectivity service does not come from the same provider as the addresses.


> 
> Please read again the CPM at section 5:
> 
> ~°~
> [...]
> • 5.5.1.4.1 An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about 80% of
> all the address space currently allocated to it has been used in valid
> assignments and/or sub-allocations.
> • 5.5.1.4.2 *Reservations* are not considered as valid assignments or
> sub-allocations.
> [...]
> ~°~
> 

Yep… that’s not a prohibition on valid assignment and/or sub allocation 
independent of
connectivity services, that’s a prohibition of addresses not being attached to 
hosts.

>  
> It’s simply not prohibited anywhere in policy.
> 
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> ...going further, along with what i wrote above, note 
> that *conservation* is not valid, that appears to be 
> the best description of leasing...of INRs.

Nope… It’s not a good description at all. Reservations (as prohibited in 
5.5.1.4.2) refers
to addresses set aside for later use…Addresses not currently assigned to active 
hosts.

Such is not the case with leasing. With leasing, the addresses are assigned to 
hosts active
on the internet, but the hosts may be getting their connectivity from a 
different provider than
they are getting the addresses from.

> Those who are charged to implement the CPM have
>  indicated the same. Could you, please, show us 
> where the CPM allows it?

If they have indicated this, then they are simply in error as that is not what 
it actually says.
I have not noticed AFRINIC staff referring to this section as prohibiting 
leasing, but perhaps
their reference escaped me at some point.

It does not need to be specifically permitted. That which is not prohibited is 
permitted implicitly.

Unless there is an explicit requirement in the CPM that hosts receive 
connectivity services from
the same provider which provides their addresses, then independent assignment 
is inherently
permitted and this is the current state.

I hope you now understand the difference between a reservation (holding unused 
addresses,
such as what Seacom and many others are doing) vs. providing addresses that are 
actually 
in use, but not simultaneously providing transit or transport services.

Owen

> 
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>  
> 
>> Or wait... I can not find this so-called LIR Cloud Innovation Limited with 
>> offices in Seychelles using this BGP tool.
>> 
>> https://bgp.he.net/country/SC 
> 
> And?
>  [...]
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> Best Regards !
> __
> baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]| >
> Subscribe to Mailing List:  >
> __
> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous 
> tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire 
> après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Timothy Ola Akinfenwa]

+1 Sylvain!



On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:48 AM Sylvain Baya  wrote:

> Dear AfriNIC's Community,
>
> Please see my comments below, inline...
>
> Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
> community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss <
>> community-discuss@afrinic.net> 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.
>>
>>
> How come that INRs management becomes a
> matter of such secrets?
>
> Please Jordi or any other volunteer, let me know if
> you are willing to contribute to draft a DPP to
> remove the possibility of keeping such, apparently,
> unjustified secrets.
>

I'm willing to contribute!

>
>
>
>> We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer
>> relevant and that, like any ISP in business for more than 8 years, things
>> have changed and we have adapted.
>>
>>
> Dear Owen,
>
> ...strange! is/was it an adaptation for the good of
> the AfriNIC's service region?
>
> Please, could you enlightenned us on those
> interesting details?
>
> ...moving 90% of INRs out of the AfriNIC's service
> region, without any Inter RIR transfer policy, seems
> to be your best way to support the grow of this RIR
> region.
>
>
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Because it is no longer relevant.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>
> Jordi, maybe it's simply time to stop allowing such
> secrets.
>
>
> In reality, even if a curative submission is required (if the last filed
>> justification to which I do not have access, TBH), I would suggest they
>> simply modify their justification to the following:
>>
>> We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own
>> infrastructure and on our customers’ networks.
>>
>> This is a justification which meets the letter of the law of the policy
>> and which does not preclude leasing.
>
>
>
> Owen,
> ...are you considering the notions of *conservation*
>  and *reservations*?
>
> Knowing the understanding of the current
> implementers of the CPM, it's clear that one shall
> need to submit a convincing addressing plan
> before receiving any INR allocation.
>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
>
>>
>> Owen
>> [...]
>
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Best Regards !
> __
> baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
> Subscribe to Mailing List:  >
> __
> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec
> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
> après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


Best regards,
<.ta/>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Please see my comments below, inline...

Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :

>
>
> > On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:30 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss <
> community-discuss@afrinic.net> 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.
>
>
How come that INRs management becomes a
matter of such secrets?

Please Jordi or any other volunteer, let me know if
you are willing to contribute to draft a DPP to
remove the possibility of keeping such, apparently,
unjustified secrets.



> We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer
> relevant and that, like any ISP in business for more than 8 years, things
> have changed and we have adapted.
>
>
Dear Owen,

...strange! is/was it an adaptation for the good of
the AfriNIC's service region?

Please, could you enlightenned us on those
interesting details?

...moving 90% of INRs out of the AfriNIC's service
region, without any Inter RIR transfer policy, seems
to be your best way to support the grow of this RIR
region.



> > 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.
>
> Because it is no longer relevant.
>
> > 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.
>
>
Jordi, maybe it's simply time to stop allowing such
secrets.


In reality, even if a curative submission is required (if the last filed
> justification to which I do not have access, TBH), I would suggest they
> simply modify their justification to the following:
>
> We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own
> infrastructure and on our customers’ networks.
>
> This is a justification which meets the letter of the law of the policy
> and which does not preclude leasing.



Owen,
...are you considering the notions of *conservation*
 and *reservations*?

Knowing the understanding of the current
implementers of the CPM, it's clear that one shall
need to submit a convincing addressing plan
before receiving any INR allocation.

Shalom,
--sb.


>
> Owen
> [...]



-- 
--

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
Subscribe to Mailing List: 
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :
>
>
> > On Jul 27, 2021, at 13:27 , Barry Macharia 
> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
>
> Otherwise, I will presume that your statement applies to the general
> requirement in the bylaws that the member
> must provide services within the region.
>
>
...it appears that, it is not sufficient for you!

That's not the case for *someothers*  including the implementers of the
CPM, who care to both the CPM, the Bylaws and the RSA combined and
consolidated, not the CPM alone...

...i was thinking that it is a trivial common think :'-(

Isn't it?



> > [...]
>
> > Trying to bottleneck the organisation will not happen under this
> communities and majority of resource members watch.
>
> Bottleneck? Not sure of your meaning here. We are merely seeking to hold
> AFRINIC to its own rules as written and
> to continue our operations within those rules as they have been for
> several years.
>
>
...even *good* stories, like this one, end, brother!

Shalom,
--sb.


Owen
> [...]



-- 
--

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
Subscribe to Mailing List: 
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Sylvain Baya]

Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Le mercredi 28 juillet 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :

>
>
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>
>>
> You’re not answering the question I asked…
>
>
Hi Owen,
Thanks for your email, brother!



> What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing
> addresses without providing connectivity
> services is not?
>
>
...you might have forgotten about a simple notion,
called: conservation. You shall recognize it as it has
 been refered out there as *Reservations*.

Please read again the CPM at section 5:

~°~
[...]
• 5.5.1.4.1 An LIR may receive an additional allocation when about 80% of
all the address space currently allocated to it has been used in valid
assignments and/or sub-allocations.
• 5.5.1.4.2 *Reservations* are not considered as valid assignments or
sub-allocations.
[...]
~°~



> It’s simply not prohibited anywhere in policy.
>
>
Are you serious?

...going further, along with what i wrote above, note
that *conservation* is not valid, that appears to be
the best description of leasing...of INRs.

Those who are charged to implement the CPM have
 indicated the same. Could you, please, show us
where the CPM allows it?

Shalom,
--sb.


>
> Or wait... I can not find this so-called LIR *Cloud Innovation Limited* with
>> offices in Seychelles using this BGP tool.
>>
>>
>> *https://bgp.he.net/country/SC *
>>
>
> And?
>
 [...]

>
> Owen
>
>

-- 
--

Best Regards !
__
baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|
Subscribe to Mailing List: 
__
#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous
tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Frank Habicht]

On 29/07/2021 05:06, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
>> On Jul 28, 2021, at 14:43 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss 
>>  wrote:
>> If I said "I'm going to setup a network connecting 8 million users in a, b 
>> and c African countries, please allocate 9 million addresses to me". If then 
>> I change my business plan or actually *never* setup this network, the 
>> original documentation provided to justify the allocation, is not valid. 
>> Otherwise, every AFRINIC member could do the same, just to circumvent the 
>> rules!
> 
> Sure, but if you said I’m going to provide addresses to number more than 
> 6,000,000 hosts on our own and our customers networks, please give me 
> 6,000,000 addresses in 2013 and 2014 (and we did this in the form of 4 
> sequential requests as utilization increased), and you can show that the 
> networks were actually built out at each phase and you can show that the 
> addresses are still utilized in a manner consistent with that description, 
> then there’s no valid basis for reclamation.

I'd like to point out that both Jordi's question and Owens answer are
hypothetical.

Including the conclusion.

Frank

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <63b2e98f-a135-4020-8f0f-cbf245f03...@delong.com>, 
Owen DeLong  wrote:

>> Of course, the original justification is *extremely relevant*. Was
>>it done properly and in good faith?
>
>First: yes. It was proper and in good faith for a business model that
>was very effective and useful at the time.

Great!  When do we get to see the relevant documents?


Regards,
rfg


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , 
Owen DeLong  wrote:

>Cloud Innovation submitted correct and valid justifications under policy which
>were reviewed not only by staff, but also by the AFRINIC board. The board
>elected {to} have the addresses issued after deliberating the matter. Yes, as
>is the case with any other resource member, that justification remains
>confidential.

OK.  I'll bite.  Why?  Why should a set of justifications for large IP
space blocks that were submitted 7 or 8 years ago still be in any way
"confidential" *today* and here in 2021?

Haven't you told us, repeatedly, that yes, Cloud Innovation's IP space is
nowadays being used in entirely different manner and for entirely different
purposes than it was when it was all first granted?  If not then why did
you yourself assert that the -original- IP space justifications are "no
longer relevant"?

If the space is all being used in a totally different way now than how it was
originally being used back in 2013 and 2014... which seems to be just about
the only fact that both Cloud Innovation and AFRINIC agree on... then what's
the big secret?  Why not just show us the original justifications?  That
original justification documentation is utterly irrelevant to Cloud
Innovation's *current* business and to Cloud Innovation's *current* business
model, so where is the harm in just showing us that stale, old, and
"irrelevant" stuff?


>> The only scrap of information that has, so far, been made pubic about that
>> decision process is that the decision(s) to grant Cloud Innovation two
>> /11 blocks and two /12 blocks were NOT made by the Board at the time,
>> but rather by "staff".  (Well, anyway, there were some public mailing
>> list messages to that effect at the time.)
>
>Whether the ultimate decision was made by staff or by the board, certainly the
>board reviewed and weighed in on at least the last two to the best of my
>knowledge.

So the Board at the time DID NOT weight in on the first two allocations
that Cloud Innovation got, correct?  That decision was made strictly and
only by "staff", yes?  (Again, there were claims made to that effect...
PUBLIC claims... back at the time, i.e. that the allocation decisions
had been made by "staff" and -not- reviewed by the board.  I will try to
find the links for you if you doubt it.  I think that I saved those in
one of my investigation files.)

Remind me please... Who was the ultimate head of "staff" at the time?
I'm talking about 2013 and 2014.  My memory seems to be failing me.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , 
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  wrote:

>Ronald is very right.

Jordi, you say that almost as if there could ever have been any doubt!
:-)

Anyway, there has been a lot of heat and backbiting and diversions and
(in my opinion) uncalled for veiled innuendo in and on the mailing lists
of late, but for me, the central issues that both members and outside
observers, such as myself, should be concerned about are just these
(in no particular order):

 (*) Did Cloud Innovation behave properly, lawfully, and in accordance
 with their RSA contract and AFRINIC policy back when the company first
 received its IPv4 allocations?

 (*) Since then, has Cloud Innovation behaved properly, lawfully, and
 in accordance with their RSA contract and AFRINIC policy?

 (*) When AFRINIC first granted Cloud Innovation its IPv4 allocations,
 did it (AFRINIC) behave properly, lawfully, and in accordance with all
 applicable AFRINIC policies and procedures at that time?

 (*) When AFRINIC recently made the decision to (attempt to) reclaim
 those IPv4 address blocks that AFRINIC had previously granted to Cloud
 Innovation, did it behave properly, lawfully, and in accordance with
 its own policies and Bylaws, AND in accordance with the terms of Cloud
 Innovation's previously executed RSA contract (which also bound AFRINIC
 to certain Terms & Conditions)?

 (*) Did the Mauritian judicial system behave properly, lawfully, and
 in accordance with Mauritian law when it granted an (ex parte?) request
 for an order freezing AFRINIC's bank accounts?

Having set forth these key questions, I would urge restraint on all those who
would now attempt to provide us with their views on these questions ESPECIALLY
if their responses would provide no new hard information and no viewpoints
that have not already been flogged to death on this mailing list.  There
is neither any need for nor any purpose to be served by Owen writing another
10,000 lines explaining his viewpoint.  I think we all have already taken
note of that, in spades.  Equally, there is neither any need for, nor any
point in Leo posting any more vague innuendos about "money".  (Having made
this suggestion, I will break with my own recommendation and give my view,
briefly, on just the final bullet point above, but in a separate message
to follow this one.)

In short, we have no shortage of opinions here.  What we do have is a relative
dearth of hard facts and evidence, and 99% of all the posts here over the past
week or so have failed to do a single thing to improve that situation.

As I have said previously, the Mauritian courts will, I hope, in due course
be the ultimate arbiters of the several open questions listed above, leaving
the opinions posted here as merely the proverbial "sound and fury, signifying
nothing."  Until then, and given that neither party has shown us all of their
cards, most of us here are and will remain just passive observers to a high
stakes poker game whose outcome is as yet quite uncertain.

I'm sure that both sides of this epic struggle are hoping that their respective
astroturfing efforts, here on this list, will in some way affect the final
outcome.  My hope is that it shall not be so.  The facts should determine the
outcome, not the PR campaigns or either side or either faction.

One final comment on Jordi's post...

>We need to be crystal clear and transparent: If we want that the documented
>purposes for any member can change without a re-check, then it is open to
>all kind of cheating...

Jordi's point is valid, but doesn't go nearly far enough in the way of
diagnosing the actual problem.

The entire global system by which the five RIRs decide who will and who
will not be granted (now valuable) number resources is, and has been from
the beginning, and BY DESIGN a process cloaked in utter secrecy, with
zero outside accountability.  The entire system is an open invitation
to cheating and self-dealing, no less so than the equally international
and unaccountable organization known as FIFA.  (And I hope that you all
know by now how well THAT worked out.)

To paraphrase from the classic Tennessee Williams play "A Streetcar Named
Desire", all of us have been, are, and remain "Reliant on the honesty of
strangers."

This is the actual and central lesson of "The Great AFRINIC Heist" that
no one but me seems to have fully appreciated, i.e. that under a cloak of
utter secrecy and in the absence of any independent oversight, anything
is possible... not just corruption, but corruption on a grand scale, and
corruption that can even go on for years on end without anyone being any
the wiser.

Back in the salad days, when IP addresses were worth nothing, the global
system of RIRs worked well enough.  But we haven't been living in that
carefree, idyllic and innocent age for at least twelve or thirteen years
now, ever since Microsoft bough a massive chunk of legacy IPv4 space from
the bankruptcy estate 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 28, 2021, at 16:57 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> And given what we now know... largely due to my work... about all of the
> funny business that occurred at AFRINIC between, say, 2010 and February,
> 2015... the same time period when much or all of "The Great AFRINIC Heist"
> happened... AND given the absolute and complete lack of public information
> about how Cloud Innovation's allocations came to be in the first place,
> I, for one, remain deeply curious about everything related to how those
> allocations came to be made, back in 2013 and 2014.
> 
> Oui en effet on se rappelle bien de cette période où le Board entrait dans le 
> Mico-management d'Afrinic, et jouait quasiment le Rôle du CEO, sans que ce 
> dernier ne réclame son droit, car ce sont eux qui l'ont recruté face à un 
> Candidat hors du commun, respect de la communauté Internet mondiale. Il avait 
> donc peut-être peur pour son poste. 

The CEO at the time that our addresses were issued was none other than Adiel 
Akplogan, so it’s not really clear to me who you think you are targeting here, 
as I thought he was in place since the beginning of AFRINIC. What early better 
candidate do you believe was passed up in hiring Adiel?

> The only scrap of information that has, so far, been made pubic about that
> decision process is that the decision(s) to grant Cloud Innovation two
> /11 blocks and two /12 blocks were NOT made by the Board at the time,
> but rather by "staff".  (Well, anyway, there were some public mailing
> list messages to that effect at the time.)
> 
> Je n'en suis pas sûr, même si le CEO de cette période, se laissait 
> suppléanter par le Board. Je pari que le Board a fait valoir son veto pour 
> que cette requête passe, avec la complicité de certains membres du staff, 
> qu'on voyait en ce temps là participer à des dîners organisés par CI. Ils se 
> connaissent et ont intérêt à ce que les intérêts d'Afrinic soient bien 
> préservés actuellement, sinon on va les dénoncer ici pour que tout le monde 
> sache qui ils sont et ce qu'ils ont fait à notre Afrique (notre chez nous). 

As near as I can parse this, you are ranting about certain board members 
attending dinners hosted by Cloud Innovation as if a mere dinner would sway 
someone’s vote against their fiduciary responsibility.
You appear to be making unfounded charges of corruption without providing any 
evidence which amounts to an ad hominem attack in violation of the CoC.

Beyond that, I’m not able to parse anything relevant in your screed, so I will 
not bother to respond beyond that point.

Owen

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 28, 2021, at 14:43 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ronald is very right.
> 
> How that can be possible?

By no longer relevant, I mean it does not apply to the current business 
environment and business model
under which Cloud Innovation currently operates. Updated information was, per 
policy, submitted to AFRINIC
as things changed. This is perfectly normal for any ISP or other form of LIR.

> Of course, the original justification is *extremely relevant*. Was it done 
> properly and in good faith?

First: yes. It was proper and in good faith for a business model that was very 
effective and useful at the time.

> Was it properly checked by the staff? Was the relevant staff doing correctly 
> his/her job?

To the best of my knowledge, yes. To the best of my knowledge at least the last 
two allocations were also reviewed by the board prior to being issued.

> Is that justification still valid, or if the original intended usage has been 
> changed, has that been reviewed with the staff to ensure compliance with 
> policies and rules?

Cloud Innovation provided updates to AFRINIC about our changing utilization 
patters in accordance with policy to the best of our knowledge. While we have 
received indications from staff that they do not consider our updates to be 
sufficient, we have not, as yet, been able to get any clear indication from 
staff what the nature of these insufficiencies are and we have been unable to 
obtain an actionable request from staff that would allow us to provide a more 
useful answer.

> I could understand that you could change the usage of a small % and it is 
> just fine, but if it is the majority of the allocation, the original 
> documented purpose may not be longer valid.

We agree that the original documented purpose is no longer valid and have, as 
per policy requirements submitted updated information about the new purpose as 
each subordinate prefix was repurposed.

I am not personally sure if there are any subordinate prefixes which are still 
utilized for the original purpose. But I am confident that each of the prefixes 
which was repurposed was properly updated with AFRINIC as required in policy.

> If I said "I'm going to setup a network connecting 8 million users in a, b 
> and c African countries, please allocate 9 million addresses to me". If then 
> I change my business plan or actually *never* setup this network, the 
> original documentation provided to justify the allocation, is not valid. 
> Otherwise, every AFRINIC member could do the same, just to circumvent the 
> rules!

Sure, but if you said I’m going to provide addresses to number more than 
6,000,000 hosts on our own and our customers networks, please give me 6,000,000 
addresses in 2013 and 2014 (and we did this in the form of 4 sequential 
requests as utilization increased), and you can show that the networks were 
actually built out at each phase and you can show that the addresses are still 
utilized in a manner consistent with that description, then there’s no valid 
basis for reclamation.

> Note that my comments are *in general* not just for CI or whatever is the 
> AFRINIC member name or the number of allocated/assigned addresses.

Fair enough. My comments are specific to CI because that is the specific case 
that I know and which seems to be the subject of this conversation.

> We need to be crystal clear and transparent: If we want that the documented 
> purposes for any member can change without a re-check, then it is open to all 
> kind of cheating and I don't think the community adopted such rules. To allow 
> that, we will need to agree, via the PDP on that.

It did not change without a re-check. It changed over time on multiple prefixes 
and was visible to AFRINIC staff for changes beginning in 2016.

The first indication we ever received that anything was not considered valid in 
this process came in the latter half of 2020. This is all documented in the 
timeline we posted to community-discuss several days back.

Owen

> 
> 
> El 28/7/21 23:31, "Ronald F. Guilmette"  escribió:
> 
>In message , 
>Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
>> We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer relevant
> 
>What is this "we" Owen?  Is that the royal "we"?  Because *I* certainly
>have no recollection that *I* ever agreed that the original justification
>that was used as the basis for Cloud Innovation being granted two /11
>blocks and two /12 blocks is "no longer relevant".
> 
>And given what we now know... largely due to my work... about all of the
>funny business that occurred at AFRINIC between, say, 2010 and February,
>2015... the same time period when much or all of "The Great AFRINIC Heist"
>happened... AND given the absolute and complete lack of public information
>about how Cloud Innovation's allocations came to be in the first place,
>I, for one, remain deeply curious about everything related to how 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 28, 2021, at 14:40 , Noah  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 8:28 AM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 04:01 , Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, 19:32 Leo S, > > wrote:
>> 
>> The current situation poses risks to users who rent their IP addresses. I 
>> think the problem itself is AFRINIC's own problem. Who allocated 7 million 
>> addresses to them? As far as I know, even providers like OVH do not have 7 
>> million IP addresses. And a paper company can get 7 million IP addresses.
>> 
>> 
>> This part of the world, we call them brief case companies.
>> 
>> So while checking some statistics with a good friend over the weekend, we 
>> just noted that actually Cloud Innovation has more IPv4 addresses than East 
>> African countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and I won't even bother posting 
>> for Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan because its sad.
> 
> It also serves more end users 
> 
> You mean e.g
> 
> 1. AS133199 = SonderCloud Limited,
> Country of Origin:Hong Kong
> https://bgp.he.net/AS133199#_prefixes 
> 
> …[snip]...
> 
> 19. AS262167  Redcol S.A.
> Country of Origin: Chile  in South America
> https://bgp.he.net/AS262167#_prefixes 
> https://bgp.he.net/net/45.199.159.0/24 
> 
> 

Sure, among others that are both within and outside of Africa.

This is allowed by current policy, whether you like that fact or not.

> What is your point?
> 
> IPv4 Addresses Allocation to Cloud Innovation Ltd are being originated by 
> various ISPs around the world beyond AFRICA some of whom are below from 
> China, USA, HongKong, Chile etc and other locations based on each ASN.
> 
> 
> AS132203  
> AS13768 
> AS262167
> AS35916
> AS140107
> AS55330
> AS40065
> AS40676
> AS137443
> AS137951
> AS134548
> AS64021
> AS136038
> AS63888
> AS132839
> AS62587
> AS134121
> AS141374
> AS133199
> 
> And the only known AFRICAN AS originating CIL prefixes in Africa is Africa On 
> Cloud's
> AS328608
> https://bgp.he.net/AS328608#_prefixes 

Are you sure about that?

China Telecom South Africa is (to the best of my knowledge) in Africa. Who 
cares where they got their ASN?

That is just one example.

There are others.

> And that is my point!. so much so for a unique routing 

I still don’t understand how your point is relevant. So Long as Cloud 
Innovation is providing services in Africa, it meets the requirements in the 
bylaws for membership. There is nothing there about what percentage of the 
company’s business must be in Africa. There is nothing there about any sort of 
requirement for connectivity services to be provided with the addresses. 
There’s nothing there requiring ASNs issued by AFRINIC to announce the prefixes.

You keep implying requirements that simply don’t exist.

If you have a legitimate complaint about an actual violation of policy, let’s 
hear it.

Otherwise, what is the point of persisting in these exercises?

Owen

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 28, 2021, at 14:25 , Ronald F. Guilmette  
> wrote:
> 
> In message , 
> Owen DeLong  wrote:
> 
>> We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer relevant
> 
> What is this "we" Owen?  Is that the royal "we"?  Because *I* certainly
> have no recollection that *I* ever agreed that the original justification
> that was used as the basis for Cloud Innovation being granted two /11
> blocks and two /12 blocks is "no longer relevant".

We, as in Cloud Innovation.

> And given what we now know... largely due to my work... about all of the
> funny business that occurred at AFRINIC between, say, 2010 and February,
> 2015... the same time period when much or all of "The Great AFRINIC Heist"
> happened... AND given the absolute and complete lack of public information
> about how Cloud Innovation's allocations came to be in the first place,
> I, for one, remain deeply curious about everything related to how those
> allocations came to be made, back in 2013 and 2014.

Cloud Innovation submitted correct and valid justifications under policy which
were reviewed not only by staff, but also by the AFRINIC board. The board
elected ti have the addresses issued after deliberating the matter. Yes, as
is the case with any other resource member, that justification remains 
confidential.

> The only scrap of information that has, so far, been made pubic about that
> decision process is that the decision(s) to grant Cloud Innovation two
> /11 blocks and two /12 blocks were NOT made by the Board at the time,
> but rather by "staff".  (Well, anyway, there were some public mailing
> list messages to that effect at the time.)

Whether the ultimate decision was made by staff or by the board, certainly the
board reviewed and weighed in on at least the last two to the best of my 
knowledge.

Owen


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Le mer. 28 juil. 2021 à 21:27, Ronald F. Guilmette 
a écrit :

> In message ,
> Owen DeLong  wrote:
>
> >We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer
> relevant
>
> What is this "we" Owen?  Is that the royal "we"?  Because *I* certainly
> have no recollection that *I* ever agreed that the original justification
> that was used as the basis for Cloud Innovation being granted two /11
> blocks and two /12 blocks is "no longer relevant".
>

Hu c'est grave, très grave même. On appelle ça de la tricherie, ou
fausses déclarations (passible du retrait automatique des ressources
allouées, c'est écrit dans le RSA). Si le besoin initial à changé, il est
aussi écrit que les ressources doivent être retourner à Afrinic.


>
> And given what we now know... largely due to my work... about all of the
> funny business that occurred at AFRINIC between, say, 2010 and February,
> 2015... the same time period when much or all of "The Great AFRINIC Heist"
> happened... AND given the absolute and complete lack of public information
> about how Cloud Innovation's allocations came to be in the first place,
> I, for one, remain deeply curious about everything related to how those
> allocations came to be made, back in 2013 and 2014.
>

Oui en effet on se rappelle bien de cette période où le Board entrait dans
le Mico-management d'Afrinic, et jouait quasiment le Rôle du CEO, sans que
ce dernier ne réclame son droit, car ce sont eux qui l'ont recruté face à
un Candidat hors du commun, respect de la communauté Internet mondiale. Il
avait donc peut-être peur pour son poste.


> The only scrap of information that has, so far, been made pubic about that
> decision process is that the decision(s) to grant Cloud Innovation two
> /11 blocks and two /12 blocks were NOT made by the Board at the time,
> but rather by "staff".  (Well, anyway, there were some public mailing
> list messages to that effect at the time.)
>

Je n'en suis pas sûr, même si le CEO de cette période, se laissait
suppléanter par le Board. Je pari que le Board a fait valoir son veto pour
que cette requête passe, avec la complicité de certains membres du staff,
qu'on voyait en ce temps là participer à des dîners organisés par CI. Ils
se connaissent et ont intérêt à ce que les intérêts d'Afrinic soient bien
préservés actuellement, sinon on va les dénoncer ici pour que tout le monde
sache qui ils sont et ce qu'ils ont fait à notre Afrique (notre chez nous).



>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss]

Ronald is very right.

How that can be possible?

Of course, the original justification is *extremely relevant*. Was it done 
properly and in good faith?

Was it properly checked by the staff? Was the relevant staff doing correctly 
his/her job?

Is that justification still valid, or if the original intended usage has been 
changed, has that been reviewed with the staff to ensure compliance with 
policies and rules?

I could understand that you could change the usage of a small % and it is just 
fine, but if it is the majority of the allocation, the original documented 
purpose may not be longer valid.

If I said "I'm going to setup a network connecting 8 million users in a, b and 
c African countries, please allocate 9 million addresses to me". If then I 
change my business plan or actually *never* setup this network, the original 
documentation provided to justify the allocation, is not valid. Otherwise, 
every AFRINIC member could do the same, just to circumvent the rules!

Note that my comments are *in general* not just for CI or whatever is the 
AFRINIC member name or the number of allocated/assigned addresses.

We need to be crystal clear and transparent: If we want that the documented 
purposes for any member can change without a re-check, then it is open to all 
kind of cheating and I don't think the community adopted such rules. To allow 
that, we will need to agree, via the PDP on that.
 

El 28/7/21 23:31, "Ronald F. Guilmette"  escribió:

In message , 
Owen DeLong  wrote:

>We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer 
relevant

What is this "we" Owen?  Is that the royal "we"?  Because *I* certainly
have no recollection that *I* ever agreed that the original justification
that was used as the basis for Cloud Innovation being granted two /11
blocks and two /12 blocks is "no longer relevant".

And given what we now know... largely due to my work... about all of the
funny business that occurred at AFRINIC between, say, 2010 and February,
2015... the same time period when much or all of "The Great AFRINIC Heist"
happened... AND given the absolute and complete lack of public information
about how Cloud Innovation's allocations came to be in the first place,
I, for one, remain deeply curious about everything related to how those
allocations came to be made, back in 2013 and 2014.

The only scrap of information that has, so far, been made pubic about that
decision process is that the decision(s) to grant Cloud Innovation two
/11 blocks and two /12 blocks were NOT made by the Board at the time,
but rather by "staff".  (Well, anyway, there were some public mailing
list messages to that effect at the time.)


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
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
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 8:28 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2021, at 04:01 , Noah  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, 19:32 Leo S,  wrote:
>
>>
>> The current situation poses risks to users who rent their IP addresses. I
>> think the problem itself is AFRINIC's own problem. Who allocated 7 million
>> addresses to them? As far as I know, even providers like OVH do not have 7
>> million IP addresses. And a paper company can get 7 million IP addresses.
>>
>
>
> This part of the world, we call them brief case companies.
>
> So while checking some statistics with a good friend over the weekend, we
> just noted that actually Cloud Innovation has more IPv4 addresses than East
> African countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and I won't even bother
> posting for Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan because its sad.
>
>
> It also serves more end users
>

You mean e.g

1. AS133199 = SonderCloud Limited,

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS133199#_prefixes

2. AS141374 Brother Internet Technologies Co.,Ltd

*Country of Origin:United States*https://bgp.he.net/AS141374#_prefixes

3. AS134121 Rainbow network limited

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS134121#_prefixes

4. AS62587 QFISP LLC

*Country of Origin:United States*https://bgp.he.net/AS62587#_prefixes

5. AS132839 POWER LINE DATACENTER

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS132839#_prefixes

6, AS63888 TISP LIMITED

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS63888#_prefixes

7.AS136038 HDTIDC LIMITED

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS136038#_prefixes

8. AS64021 Network-Transit

*Country of Origin:China*https://bgp.he.net/AS64021#_prefixes

9. AS134548 DXTL Tseung Kwan O Service

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS134548#_prefixes

10. AS137951 Clayer Limited
*Country of Origin:Hong Kong *
https://bgp.he.net/net/154.86.0.0/16
https://bgp.he.net/AS137951#_prefixes

11. AS137443 Anchnet Asia Limited

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS137443#_prefixes

12. AS40676 Psychz Networks

*Country of Origin:United States*https://bgp.he.net/AS40676#_prefixes

13. AS40065 CNSERVERS LLC

*Country of Origin:United States*https://bgp.he.net/AS40065#_prefixes

14. AS55330 AFGHANTELECOM GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION NETWORK

*Country of Origin:Afghanistan*https://bgp.he.net/AS55330#_prefixes

15. AS140107 CITIS CLOUD GROUP LIMITED

*Country of Origin:Hong Kong*https://bgp.he.net/AS140107#_prefixes

16. AS13768 Aptum Technologies


*Country of Origin:Canadahttps://bgp.he.net/AS13768#_prefixes
*
17. AS132203  Tencent Building, Kejizhongyi Avenue

*Country of Origin:China*https://bgp.he.net/AS132203#_prefixes

18. AS35916  MULTACOM CORPORATION and this USA company is the one using
bigger blocks leased to them by Cloud Innovation Ltd.

*Country of Origin:United States*https://bgp.he.net/AS35916#_prefixes

19. AS262167  Redcol S.A.

*Country of Origin: Chile  in South America*
https://bgp.he.net/AS262167#_prefixes
https://bgp.he.net/net/45.199.159.0/24


What is your point?
>

IPv4 Addresses Allocation to Cloud Innovation Ltd are being originated by
various ISPs around the world beyond AFRICA some of whom are below from
China, USA, HongKong, Chile etc and other locations based on each ASN.


AS132203
AS13768
AS262167
AS35916
AS140107
AS55330
AS40065
AS40676
AS137443
AS137951
AS134548
AS64021
AS136038
AS63888
AS132839
AS62587
AS134121
AS141374
AS133199

And the only known AFRICAN AS originating CIL prefixes in Africa is *Africa
On Cloud's*
*AS328608*
https://bgp.he.net/AS328608#_prefixes


And that is my point!. so much so for a unique routing 



Noah

#*Insistence*
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , 
Owen DeLong  wrote:

>We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer relevant

What is this "we" Owen?  Is that the royal "we"?  Because *I* certainly
have no recollection that *I* ever agreed that the original justification
that was used as the basis for Cloud Innovation being granted two /11
blocks and two /12 blocks is "no longer relevant".

And given what we now know... largely due to my work... about all of the
funny business that occurred at AFRINIC between, say, 2010 and February,
2015... the same time period when much or all of "The Great AFRINIC Heist"
happened... AND given the absolute and complete lack of public information
about how Cloud Innovation's allocations came to be in the first place,
I, for one, remain deeply curious about everything related to how those
allocations came to be made, back in 2013 and 2014.

The only scrap of information that has, so far, been made pubic about that
decision process is that the decision(s) to grant Cloud Innovation two
/11 blocks and two /12 blocks were NOT made by the Board at the time,
but rather by "staff".  (Well, anyway, there were some public mailing
list messages to that effect at the time.)


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss]

Hi Owen,

Not speaking about this case but in general, even not in the RIRs/Internet 
business (I make an equivalence in the parenthesis).

When there are obligations (here bylaws, RSA, policies), for providing a 
service (here resources), and the information provided by the "receiving party" 
is not according to those obligations/rules, but false or partial information 
is used to obtain those resources, and the time demonstrates that the provided 
information was untrue or incomplete, even if there was a staff mistake to 
provide those resources because the conditions were not sufficiently met, it is 
perfectly legal to cancel the service.

There are examples of that in our environment: If I recall correctly, RIPE NCC 
has successfully got back resources from several LIRs that, for different 
reasons, have been in that situation.



El 28/7/21 5:00, "Owen DeLong"  escribió:



> On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:30 , 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.

We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer 
relevant and that, like any ISP in business for more than 8 years, things have 
changed and we have adapted.

> 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.

Because it is no longer relevant.

> 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.

In reality, even if a curative submission is required (if the last filed 
justification to which I do not have access, TBH), I would suggest they simply 
modify their justification to the following:

We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own 
infrastructure and on our customers’ networks.

This is a justification which meets the letter of the law of the policy and 
which does not preclude leasing.

Owen





**
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
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 16:04 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le mar. 27 juil. 2021 à 22:38, Ronald F. Guilmette  > a écrit :
> In message  >, 
> Barry Macharia mailto:barry.macha...@me.com>> wrote:
> 
> >This is loud and clear
> >
> >Afrinic resource are meant for African region, is that also loud and clear 
> >too.
> 
> No, actually, it isn't.  And that's the problem.
> 
> I am not here to defend Lu Heng or Cloud Innovantion, but as I understand
> it, Lu Heng's claim is a simple one:  He successfully met all of the
> requirements, as necessary, in order to request and to receive, from
> AFRINIC, all of the 6,291,456 IPv4 addresses that AFRINIC did in fact
> assign to him, as of the dates when he received these allocations, which
> were four different dates in 2013 and 2014.  He further contends that
> there is no legal basis, either within the RSA that he signed, or
> 
> Cette assertion n'est pas correct, les textes d'Afrinic sont assez clair et 
> étaient basés sur la bonne foi des membres à respecter les principes de base, 
> de la bonne pratique et non sur certains capitalistes véreux qui ont des 
> agendas cachés. C'est pourquoi certaines conditions qui normalement étaient 
> d'office compris par les parties, n'ont pas à être transcrit dans le RSA au 
> risque en le faisant d'avoir un document aussi gros qu'une bible. Ce membre a 
> profiter de certaines familles (chemin pas très correct) pour obtenir les 
> ressources qu'il a avec l'aide de certains membres corrompu du staff et du 
> Board qui se connaissent très bien. 
> 
> Cela ne change pas que la procédure d'obtention n'a pas été propre, clean. 

It is your assertion that is not correct. You cannot make policy up out of thin 
air
when a contract and written governing documents exist and contain contrary
statements.

To do so is a path to anarchy, not a responsible way to run a major internet
registry.

> 
> 
> within the AFRINIC Bylaws, or within any community-apporved policies
> which would allow AFRINIC to now withdraw those allocations in 2021.
> 
> As part of these over-arching contentions, Lu Heng has also actually or
> effectively asserted that there are little or no binding requirements upon
> AFRINIC resource members that they must operate or deploy their assigned
> number resources in a manner which preferences any particular geographical
> region.
> 
> Ceci aussi n'est pas correct, c'est faire preuve de mauvaise foi que 
> d'interpréter les textes d'Afrinic dans ce sens. Il faut tenir compte de 
> l'historique de l'attribution des ressources. Elles sont belles et bien 
> régionales et non globales. Ceci est incontestable même par toi Ronald. Donc 
> ce n'est parce qu'il a mal interprété les textes d'Afrinic qu'il a raison. 

Here, again, it is you, Arnaud who are not correct. Even the history of address
distribution started out being globally managed from a single point. Eventually,
regional registries were created, first in Europe and then in Asia for the
purposes of linguistic and time-zone convenience and little else. Other than
LACNIC, I am not aware of a single RIR which has any in-region use requirement
codified in its governing documents. Even in the case of LACNIC, it is permitted
to use up to 49.999% of your address space out of region.

> 
> I personally do not have sufficent information to judge whether he is
> right or wrong about any of these contentions and so I reserve judgement.
> 
> Non personne ne fait de jugement mais chacun présente son opinion 
> personnelle. On peut se tromper mais les arguments historiques sont 
> indélébiles, on en peut pas ne pas en tenir compte. 

Indeed. There is a long history in every RIR of out-of-region use of addresses 
by multi-regional companies.

I agree that this history should not be ignored. Why do you insist on trying to 
do so?

> He may perhaps be right, in which case it is NOT true to say that
> "Afrinic resource are meant for {the} African region".  And if that is
> true, it may defy and fly in the face of many people's beliefs and
> expectations, including mine, but beliefs and expectations are not
> the law.  
> 
> C'est surprenant que l'aspect historique t'échappe à se point sauf si ta 
> mémoire est brusquement devenue sélective. Les registres sont tous appelés 
> Registre Régionaux, par conséquence sémantique, toutes leurs activités sont 
> régionales et les ressources dont elles ont la charge sont réservées à leur 
> région, pour que ces ressources se retrouvent dans une autre région, il faut 
> une politique de transfert inter-region duement ratifiée. Ce qui n'est pas le 
> cas d'Afrinic. Par conséquent ces ressources doivent être utilisées 
> uniquement dans sa région sauf conditions exceptionnelles accordées par 
> d'Afrinic. 
> 
> Nous avons vu comment des gens ont voulu faire passer une telle politique par 
> des voies controversées, mais qui a échoué heureusement. 
> 

Yes, 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> The objectives of AFRINIC below https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws#b20-3 
>   and the reason AFRINIC become the RIR 
> for AFRICA.
> 
> 3.4) The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of 
> Mauritius, full capacity to carry and/or undertake any business or activity, 
> including but not limited to the following objects:
> to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for 
> the purposes of enabling communications via open system network protocols and 
> to assist in the development and growth of the Internet in the African region;
> to promote the representation of AFRINIC membership and the Internet 
> community of the African region by ensuring open and transparent 
> communication and consensus-driven decision-making processes;
> to promote responsible management of Internet resources throughout the 
> African region, as well as the responsible development and operation of 
> Internet infrastructures;   

Corporate objectives are not policy binding upon the company’s customers. They 
are a broad-strokes list of corporate goals.

Nonetheless, even if they were, Cloud innovation meets a sufficient fraction of 
3.4(i) to qualify. The Larus Foundation Fellowship Program is a significant 
effort towards 3.4(ii). You may not agree, but IMHO, Cloud Innovation does 
engage in 3.4(iii) through both its engagement with the community, it’s strict 
adherence to AFRINIC policies as written, and its internal policies requiring 
its address services customers to do the same.

> As part of these over-arching contentions, Lu Heng has also actually or
> effectively asserted that there are little or no binding requirements upon
> AFRINIC resource members that they must operate or deploy their assigned
> number resources in a manner which preferences any particular geographical
> region.
> 
> AFRINIC below https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws#b20-3 
> 
> 
> 3.4) The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of 
> Mauritius, full capacity to carry and/or undertake any business or activity, 
> including but not limited to the following objects:
> to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for 
> the purposes of enabling communications via open system network protocols and 
> to assist in the development and growth of the Internet in the African region;
> to promote the representation of AFRINIC membership and the Internet 
> community of the African region by ensuring open and transparent 
> communication and consensus-driven decision-making processes;
> to promote responsible management of Internet resources throughout the 
> African region, as well as the responsible development and operation of 
> Internet infrastructures;   
Once again, these criteria are a statement of corporate goals, not binding 
policy on resource members. Nonetheless, one does not need to use 100% or even 
most of ones resources within the region to fulfill all of those criteria and, 
IMHO, Cloud Innovation actually does meet each and every one of those criteria 
either directly and/or indirectly through actions of related parties.

> I personally do not have sufficent information to judge whether he is
> right or wrong about any of these contentions and so I reserve judgement.
> 
> The courts shall decide.

Indeed. So far, they seem to have decided that Larus has a good chance of 
succeeding.
 
> He may perhaps be right, in which case it is NOT true to say that
> "Afrinic resource are meant for {the} African region".  And if that is
> true, it may defy and fly in the face of many people's beliefs and
> expectations, including mine, but beliefs and expectations are not
> the law.  
> 
> The expectations  
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en 
> 
These are not expectations. They are the governing policies by which ICANN/PTI 
(acting as the IANA under the IANA functions contract) are able to accredit new 
RIRs. They are a set of requirements that ICANN must certify the RIR as meeting 
at the time of accreditation. Nothing more.

> IANA did not allocate to AFRINIC so that AFRINIC allocates to Heng Lu who 
> would then go about leasing the resources in other regions. 

It really isn’t relevant what IANA thinks of any RIRs use or distribution of 
their address space. IANA’s role is limited to accreditation of new RIRs and 
the issuance of additional blocks from its free pool to RIRs as their free 
pools approach empty. For IPv4 this process is basically over, though there are 
still occasional quarterly trickles of returned space and other minimal chunks.

> Why didn't Lu Heng go to APNIC, RIPE or ARIN. ?  If his intention was to sell 
> IPv4 addresses in those regions for profit.

To the best of my knowledge, other than a divestiture of addresses in the RIPE 
region 8+ years ago, neither 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:30 , 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.

We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer relevant 
and that, like any ISP in business for more than 8 years, things have changed 
and we have adapted.

> 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.

Because it is no longer relevant.

> 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.

In reality, even if a curative submission is required (if the last filed 
justification to which I do not have access, TBH), I would suggest they simply 
modify their justification to the following:

We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own 
infrastructure and on our customers’ networks.

This is a justification which meets the letter of the law of the policy and 
which does not preclude leasing.

Owen



___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:26 , Frank Habicht  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 27/07/2021 19:27, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:31 , Frank Habicht >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
>>> our customers in Africa" ?
>> 
>> I have no idea what they did or did not commit to with regards to Africa.
>> How is that relevant to the question at hand regarding the amount of address
>> space in question?
> 
> I really hope we can agree that AfriNIC did never outright "sell" the IP
> address space. But gave the right to use subject to justification(s).

Actually, neither.

> If not, we seem to live in different universes.

Perhaps, but perhaps not.

AFRINIC registered blocks of numbers to Cloud Innovation for the sake of 
guaranteeing
uniqueness amongst cooperating entities. AFRINIC has no authority or ability to 
issue
any sort of “right to use” as there is no legal basis for forcing a provider to 
make their
router configuration choices based on the contents of any particular RIR 
database.

Now it would be extremely disruptive to have multiple alternate registries and 
generally
because of this high cost and low return, the vast majority of providers follow 
along with
the RIR system and the overall effect amounts to a right to use, but it’s not 
an actula
legal right to use. In fact, having an address block issued by an RIR doesn’t 
guarantee
you that any service provider will accept your prefixes, so really, at best, 
it’s an ability
to use more than a “right” to use.

If we can agree on that, then perhaps we are not in different universes.

Yes, the registration is subject to certain justifications and conditions as 
specified in
the governing documents (RSA, bylaws, CPM). Where we disagree (as near as I
can tell) is mostly on what the governing documents actually say.

> 
>>> Did CI?
>> 
>> 7 years ago, CI made such a statement. CI subsequently adapted to the
>> changing business
>> environment and expanded its operations to include both Africa and other
>> continents. CI
>> submitted appropriate updates to WHOIS as these changes occurred.
> 
> I am not sure whether AfriNIC expanded it's acceptance for the use of IP
> resources by CI to the same extent.

AFRINIC is required by its governing documents to accept any expansion
or change of use that does not violate the policies spelled out in the CPM
and/or any other restrictions in the bylaws or RSA. For AFRINIC to arbitrarily
withhold such acceptance without a basis in community and/or. member
supported policy/bylaws would set an extremely dangerous precedent allowing
the staff to essentially reward their friends and punish those they don’t like
on an entirely arbitrary basis.It is my understanding that a fundamental
tenet of the RIR system is that RIRs are supposed to act in a fair and
impartial manner towards all resource holders. I do not see how that can
be possible if staff is allowed the latitude to make arbitrary decisions 
rejecting
things which are not prohibited by policy.

>>> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
>>> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
>> 
>> Where is your basis in policy for this?
> 
> In the justification from CI for the IP address space. which I haven't
> seen. Want to share?

I don’t have permission to share and TBH, I haven’t seen it, either.
However, if I had written it, it would read something like:

We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our
own infrastructure and on our customers networks.

So, let’s assume that’s what it says and see how you can provide a
basis (chapter and verse, please) for either rejecting that justification or for
claiming that said justification does not encompass leasing.

Owen


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 13:27 , Barry Macharia  wrote:
> 
> This is loud and clear
> 
> Afrinic resource are meant for African region, is that also loud and clear 
> too.

Please provide a reference for this statement in any of the governing documents 
that covers more than just the
addresses issued after soft landing exhaustion phase 1 began.

> 
> The below Cloud Innovation non-legacy resources were allocated so that they 
> are used as per bylaws to enable African Internet development. 
> 
> 156.224.0.0/11 - 2+ Million IP Addresses 
> 154.192.0.0/11 - 2+ Million IP Addresses 
> 45.192.0.0/12  - 1+ Million IP Addresses 
> 154.80.0.0/12  - 1+ Million IP Addresses 

If you are claiming that the bylaws state that all addresses must be used to 
enable African Internet Development,
you will need to back that up with a reference to the specific section(s) of 
the bylaws where this is stated.

Otherwise, I will presume that your statement applies to the general 
requirement in the bylaws that the member
must provide services within the region.

> The defenders of CIL , do you use the above resources in africa??? 

Yes, some of those addresses are deployed and providing services in Africa.

> If so show us the evidence you do.

Among others:
156.227.33.0/24 thru 156.227.65.0/24 (Cloud Innovation Infrastructure 
ZA)
156.227.66.0/24 thru 156.227.127.0/24 (China Telecom Sout Africa ZA)

This just a quick sample from scrolling through the one whois query against one 
prefix.

I’m not going to spend hours tracking down a bunch fo data that you can easily 
get from
WHOIS yourself. I’ve proven that we have operations in Africa and that we have 
customers
using our address space in Africa with the above two groups of prefixes.

Now, can you provide proof of any of your claims above?

> Trying to bottleneck the organisation will not happen under this communities 
> and majority of resource members watch.

Bottleneck? Not sure of your meaning here. We are merely seeking to hold 
AFRINIC to its own rules as written and
to continue our operations within those rules as they have been for several 
years.

Owen



___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:00 , Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:
> 
> @Noah +1
> 
> Le mar. 27 juil. 2021 à 18:41, Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
> a écrit :
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:32 PM Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:
> 
>> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
>> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
> 
> Where is your basis in policy for this?
> 
> Let me attempt to answer your fake question with links that show AFRINIC 
> members from some of the 54 AFRICAN countries with real networks in AFRICA.
> 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/KE 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/TZ 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/ZA 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/NG 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/MU 
You’re not answering the question I asked…

What is your basis in policy for claiming that a VM is OK, but leasing 
addresses without providing connectivity
services is not?

It’s simply not prohibited anywhere in policy.

> Or wait... I can not find this so-called LIR Cloud Innovation Limited with 
> offices in Seychelles using this BGP tool.
> 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/SC 

And?

> 
> You try so hard to pretend with your alternative reality in your quest to 
> defend Heng Lu and his IP ADDRESS SOLUTIONS business run under his subsidiary 
> HongKong company Larus  https://www.larus.net/  
> 
> FYI... "AFRINIC has never approved any application for IP space for the 
> purpose of leasing despite having received such requests." 

OK, so AFRINIC has repeatedly violated their own policies. Doesn’t change the 
question and doesn’t change the reality.

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html
>  
> 

Also, nobody in their right mind would submit an application with that kind of 
specificity. The following justification is perfectly
adequate and conforms to policy:

We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our own and on 
our customers’ networks.


> 
> Cheers,
> Noah
> PS: The ALLOCATION POLICY is linked to the AFRINIC BYLAWS which are both 
> linked to the AFRINIC RSA.

That’s correct. Now show me where, in any of those documents, connectivity is 
required to be provided in conjunction
with address resource services. If you can’t do that, then you’ve made my case.

FWIW, I’m not saying that I like this situation, but I am saying that’s what 
the policies actually say. If the AFRINIC community
truly sought to prohibit out of region use or leasing, then they could easily 
propose and get consensus for policies that would
do so. There was an attempt at prohibiting out of region utilization several 
years ago. It met with substantial resistance for a
variety of reasons from virtually every segment of the community. It was 
eventually withdrawn by the authors without gaining
consensus. Nobody has ever even proposed a possible policy to prohibit 
providing address services without providing
connectivity services. Possibly because most people recognize that such a 
policy wouldn’t have much of a useful effect.

There’s a very simple fig leaf that someone could use in case such a policy 
were passed:

Announce the aggregates (least specific prefixes) from a central site 
in the region.
Reannounce the more specifics upon customer request, but heavily 
prepended.
Have some minimal connection to each customer so that packets delivered 
to the aggregate
can be delivered to the customer if necessary.
Customers maintain their other connections and have LOAs to multi home 
and announce their less specific
prefixes..

Voila, now it’s not technically leasing without connectivity, but it might as 
well be. The less specifics are very unlikely
to pull in any significant traffic as they’ll be overridden by the more 
specifics advertised elsewhere (and/or the longer
AS Path for the more specifics). Obviously, the customers will hot potato their 
outbound traffic to their closest highest
bandwidth egress points rather than through the narrow pipe back to the 
“address service provider”.

Currently policy doesn’t require this pretense. If it does, I suspect it would 
get implemented as needed to comply.

Owen

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Arnaud AMELINA  wrote:

>C'est surprenant que l'aspect historique t'�chappe � se point sauf si ta
>m�moire est brusquement devenue s�lective. Les registres sont tous appel�s
>Registre R�gionaux, par cons�quence s�mantique, toutes leurs activit�s sont
>r�gionales et les ressources dont elles ont la charge sont r�serv�es � leur
>r�gion, pour que ces ressources se retrouvent dans une autre r�gion, il faut
>une politique de transfert inter-region duement ratifi�e. Ce qui n'est pas le
>cas d'Afrinic. Par cons�quent ces ressources doivent �tre utilis�es uniquement
>dans sa r�gion sauf conditions exceptionnelles accord�es par d'Afrinic.�

I am forced to agree that intuitively, the Regional Internet Registries
were indeed created with the idea in mind that each one would serve to
help develop and administer Internet number resources within their
respective regions.  But our shared intutive notions are not the same
as what is written down, and when things end up in court, as a general
rule only those things that are written down actually matter.

I have some experience with courts and with litigation, so I kind of know
how this works.

Believe me, there are many clever lawyers on this planet who would argue,
perhaps even successfully,  that the Ten Commandments of Moses do not
apply to their specific client because there was never a written rule
requiring all the people to be able to read Hebrew.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 17:32 Lili Au,  wrote:

> Thank you Noah,
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm afraid that I can not share the LOA since it will give them some
> clues. But I can say --
>

You can share through the available Whistle blowing mechanism provided by
AFRINIC via the link below.

https://www.afrinic.net/whistleblowing?lang=en

It's worth noting that some LOAs signed by Mr.Paul Lam of LARUS have been
shared by Heng Lu himself in the past. So this LOA's from Larus we have
seen a couple.

Cheers,
Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

Le mar. 27 juil. 2021 à 22:38, Ronald F. Guilmette 
a écrit :

> In message ,
> Barry Macharia  wrote:
>
> >This is loud and clear
> >
> >Afrinic resource are meant for African region, is that also loud and
> clear too.
>
> No, actually, it isn't.  And that's the problem.
>
> I am not here to defend Lu Heng or Cloud Innovantion, but as I understand
> it, Lu Heng's claim is a simple one:  He successfully met all of the
> requirements, as necessary, in order to request and to receive, from
> AFRINIC, all of the 6,291,456 IPv4 addresses that AFRINIC did in fact
> assign to him, as of the dates when he received these allocations, which
> were four different dates in 2013 and 2014.  He further contends that
> there is no legal basis, either within the RSA that he signed, or
>

Cette assertion n'est pas correct, les textes d'Afrinic sont assez clair et
étaient basés sur la bonne foi des membres à respecter les principes de
base, de la bonne pratique et non sur certains capitalistes véreux qui ont
des agendas cachés. C'est pourquoi certaines conditions qui normalement
étaient d'office compris par les parties, n'ont pas à être transcrit dans
le RSA au risque en le faisant d'avoir un document aussi gros qu'une bible.
Ce membre a profiter de certaines familles (chemin pas très correct) pour
obtenir les ressources qu'il a avec l'aide de certains membres corrompu du
staff et du Board qui se connaissent très bien.

Cela ne change pas que la procédure d'obtention n'a pas été propre, clean.


within the AFRINIC Bylaws, or within any community-apporved policies
> which would allow AFRINIC to now withdraw those allocations in 2021.
>
> As part of these over-arching contentions, Lu Heng has also actually or
> effectively asserted that there are little or no binding requirements upon
> AFRINIC resource members that they must operate or deploy their assigned
> number resources in a manner which preferences any particular geographical
> region.
>

Ceci aussi n'est pas correct, c'est faire preuve de mauvaise foi que
d'interpréter les textes d'Afrinic dans ce sens. Il faut tenir compte de
l'historique de l'attribution des ressources. Elles sont belles et bien
régionales et non globales. Ceci est incontestable même par toi Ronald.
Donc ce n'est parce qu'il a mal interprété les textes d'Afrinic qu'il a
raison.

>
> I personally do not have sufficent information to judge whether he is
> right or wrong about any of these contentions and so I reserve judgement.
>

Non personne ne fait de jugement mais chacun présente son opinion
personnelle. On peut se tromper mais les arguments historiques sont
indélébiles, on en peut pas ne pas en tenir compte.

He may perhaps be right, in which case it is NOT true to say that
> "Afrinic resource are meant for {the} African region".  And if that is
> true, it may defy and fly in the face of many people's beliefs and
> expectations, including mine, but beliefs and expectations are not
> the law.


C'est surprenant que l'aspect historique t'échappe à se point sauf si ta
mémoire est brusquement devenue sélective. Les registres sont tous appelés
Registre Régionaux, par conséquence sémantique, toutes leurs activités sont
régionales et les ressources dont elles ont la charge sont réservées à leur
région, pour que ces ressources se retrouvent dans une autre région, il
faut une politique de transfert inter-region duement ratifiée. Ce qui n'est
pas le cas d'Afrinic. Par conséquent ces ressources doivent être utilisées
uniquement dans sa région sauf conditions exceptionnelles accordées par
d'Afrinic.

Nous avons vu comment des gens ont voulu faire passer une telle politique
par des voies controversées, mais qui a échoué heureusement.

The law is the law, contracts are in writing, and the courts
> are now tasked with figuring out who is in the right and who is in the
> wrong.  The speculations and fervent beliefs of the rest of us, as
> expressed on this mailing list, will, in the end, be rather entirely
> irrelevant.
>

Merci Ronald de ne pas glisser dans tes informations souvent plausibles,
des informations erronées ou non fondées.

>
>
>
>
> Regards,
> rfg
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 1:40 AM Ronald F. Guilmette 
wrote:

> In message ,
> Barry Macharia  wrote:
>
> >This is loud and clear
> >
> >Afrinic resource are meant for African region, is that also loud and
> clear too.
>
> No, actually, it isn't.  And that's the problem.
>
> I am not here to defend Lu Heng or Cloud Innovantion, but as I understand
> it, Lu Heng's claim is a simple one:  He successfully met all of the
> requirements, as necessary, in order to request and to receive, from
> AFRINIC, all of the 6,291,456 IPv4 addresses that AFRINIC did in fact
> assign to him, as of the dates when he received these allocations, which
> were four different dates in 2013 and 2014.


And here is what Lu Heng stated in 2014 about the said allocations.

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2014/004161.html



> He further contends that
> there is no legal basis, either within the RSA that he signed, or
> within the AFRINIC Bylaws, or within any community-apporved policies
> which would allow AFRINIC to now withdraw those allocations in 2021.
>

The objectives of AFRINIC below https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws#b20-3  and
the reason AFRINIC become the RIR for AFRICA.

3.4) The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of
Mauritius, full capacity to carry and/or undertake any business or
activity, including but not limited to the following objects:

   1. *to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet
   resources for the purposes of enabling communications via open system
   network protocols and to assist in the development and growth of the
   Internet in the African region;*
   2. *to promote the representation of AFRINIC membership and the Internet
   community of the African region by ensuring open and transparent
   communication and consensus-driven decision-making processes;*
   3. *to promote responsible management of Internet resources throughout
   the African region, as well as the responsible development and operation of
   Internet infrastructures; *



>
> As part of these over-arching contentions, Lu Heng has also actually or
> effectively asserted that there are little or no binding requirements upon
> AFRINIC resource members that they must operate or deploy their assigned
> number resources in a manner which preferences any particular geographical
> region.
>

AFRINIC below https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws#b20-3

3.4) The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of
Mauritius, full capacity to carry and/or undertake any business or
activity, including but not limited to the following objects:

   1. *to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet
   resources for the purposes of enabling communications via open system
   network protocols and to assist in the development and growth of the
   Internet in the African region;*
   2. *to promote the representation of AFRINIC membership and the Internet
   community of the African region by ensuring open and transparent
   communication and consensus-driven decision-making processes;*
   3. *to promote responsible management of Internet resources throughout
   the African region, as well as the responsible development and operation of
   Internet infrastructures; *





>
> I personally do not have sufficent information to judge whether he is
> right or wrong about any of these contentions and so I reserve judgement.
>

The courts shall decide.


> He may perhaps be right, in which case it is NOT true to say that
> "Afrinic resource are meant for {the} African region".  And if that is
> true, it may defy and fly in the face of many people's beliefs and
> expectations, including mine, but beliefs and expectations are not
> the law.


The expectations
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en

IANA did not allocate to AFRINIC so that AFRINIC allocates to Heng Lu who
would then go about leasing the resources in other regions.

Why didn't Lu Heng go to APNIC, RIPE or ARIN. ?  If his intention was to
sell IPv4 addresses in those regions for profit.

The law is the law, contracts are in writing, and the courts
> are now tasked with figuring out who is in the right and who is in the
> wrong.


The RSA  https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/services/afrinic-rsa-en-201801.pdf

4. Conditions of service
(a) Where a member, receiving service under an existing agreement applies
for a change or a variation of the
type of such service which AFRINIC has been supplying to it, evaluation of
such a “change request” will be effected in
terms of the provisions of clause (2) of the present agreement.
(b) Cooperation:


*(i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times
bound to provide to AFRINIC suchinformation, assistance and cooperation as
may be reasonably required by the latter in the provisionof the service.*

*(ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is
investigating (reviewing) theapplicant’s utilisation of the number
resources already 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message , 
Barry Macharia  wrote:

>This is loud and clear
>
>Afrinic resource are meant for African region, is that also loud and clear too.

No, actually, it isn't.  And that's the problem.

I am not here to defend Lu Heng or Cloud Innovantion, but as I understand
it, Lu Heng's claim is a simple one:  He successfully met all of the
requirements, as necessary, in order to request and to receive, from
AFRINIC, all of the 6,291,456 IPv4 addresses that AFRINIC did in fact
assign to him, as of the dates when he received these allocations, which
were four different dates in 2013 and 2014.  He further contends that
there is no legal basis, either within the RSA that he signed, or
within the AFRINIC Bylaws, or within any community-apporved policies
which would allow AFRINIC to now withdraw those allocations in 2021.

As part of these over-arching contentions, Lu Heng has also actually or
effectively asserted that there are little or no binding requirements upon
AFRINIC resource members that they must operate or deploy their assigned
number resources in a manner which preferences any particular geographical
region.

I personally do not have sufficent information to judge whether he is
right or wrong about any of these contentions and so I reserve judgement.
He may perhaps be right, in which case it is NOT true to say that
"Afrinic resource are meant for {the} African region".  And if that is
true, it may defy and fly in the face of many people's beliefs and
expectations, including mine, but beliefs and expectations are not
the law.  The law is the law, contracts are in writing, and the courts
are now tasked with figuring out who is in the right and who is in the
wrong.  The speculations and fervent beliefs of the rest of us, as
expressed on this mailing list, will, in the end, be rather entirely
irrelevant.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <8430721b-7fcd-e6ec-8b20-b0af673ae...@geier.ne.tz>, 
Frank Habicht  wrote:

>Currently, I believe that. That back then the justification was ok.

Friends, I like to think that many, perhaps most, perhaps all of you
either know me or at least know of me.  I am a skeptic.  Not just
about some things, but about everything.  And I also like to think
that my skepticism has been of some value, not just to myself but
also to this community.

As was already noted by Frank, none of us have any legal right to see
any of Cloud Innovation's internal documents, regardless of whether they
are from seven days ago or seven years ago, and Cloud Innovation is most
certainly under no legal obligation, nor even any moral or ethical
obligation to provide any such internal documents to any of us.

That having been said, my own curiosity knows no bounds, and I personally
would be interested to see how a request for some 6,291,456 IPv4 addresses
would have been justified, back in 2013 & 2014.  At the very least, I am
sure that would be educational.

And just so that nobody thinks that I am taking sides here, let me also
say that there are, as of now, on the order of several dozen answers to
questions and pieces of information that I would also like to obtain from
AFRINIC, some of which I have been requesting from AFRINIC for literally
years already, but that I am also not privy to at the present time.  (To
put in bluntly, AFRINIC is and has been stonewalling me about a LOT of
things over a long period of time.)

In short, from where I am sitting, *everybody* is hiding something, and
I don't believe that any of this information hiding is being done for my
benefit -or- for the benefit of the AFRINIC community.  The folks doing
the hiding are looking after their own interests.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Barry Macharia via Community-Discuss]

This is loud and clear

Afrinic resource are meant for African region, is that also loud and clear too.

The below Cloud Innovation non-legacy resources were allocated so that they are 
used as per bylaws to enable African Internet development. 

156.224.0.0/11 - 2+ Million IP Addresses 
154.192.0.0/11 - 2+ Million IP Addresses 
45.192.0.0/12  - 1+ Million IP Addresses 
154.80.0.0/12  - 1+ Million IP Addresses 

The defenders of CIL , do you use the above resources in africa??? 

If so show us the evidence you do.

Trying to bottleneck the organisation will not happen under this communities 
and majority of resource members watch.

regards 
Barry macharia - Resource Holder in AFRINIC 

> On 27 Jul 2021, at 21:41, Noah  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:32 PM Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
>>> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
>> 
>> Where is your basis in policy for this?
> 
> Let me attempt to answer your fake question with links that show AFRINIC 
> members from some of the 54 AFRICAN countries with real networks in AFRICA.
> 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/KE
> https://bgp.he.net/country/TZ
> https://bgp.he.net/country/ZA
> https://bgp.he.net/country/NG
> https://bgp.he.net/country/MU
> 
> Or wait... I can not find this so-called LIR Cloud Innovation Limited with 
> offices in Seychelles using this BGP tool.
> 
> https://bgp.he.net/country/SC
> 
> You try so hard to pretend with your alternative reality in your quest to 
> defend Heng Lu and his IP ADDRESS SOLUTIONS business run under his subsidiary 
> HongKong company Larus  https://www.larus.net/ 
> 
> FYI... "AFRINIC has never approved any application for IP space for the 
> purpose of leasing despite having received such requests." 
> 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Noah
> PS: The ALLOCATION POLICY is linked to the AFRINIC BYLAWS which are both 
> linked to the AFRINIC RSA.
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss]

Yep ... I just saw your email.

I don't know why (asked staff several times), I always get the emails from 
AFRINIC lists 10-15 minutes late (even my own emails). I'm sure is not my 
server, as it doesn't happen to me with several hundreds of other lists from 
IETF, ISOC, and all the other RIRs, to mention just a few!

El 27/7/21 21:43, "Frank Habicht"  escribió:

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"  escribió:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> On 27/07/2021 19:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:26 , Frank Habicht  
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  and the key between v and n
> and then  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*
 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss]

By the way, if some parts of the justification are still "secret", then we 
could probably live knowing only part of them, redacting the confidential parts.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 27/7/21 21:36, "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss" 
 escribió:

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.

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.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet



El 27/7/21 21:12, "Frank Habicht"  escribió:

Hi Owen,

On 27/07/2021 19:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:26 , Frank Habicht  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  and the key between v and n
and then  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 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Frank Habicht]

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"  escribió:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> On 27/07/2021 19:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:26 , Frank Habicht  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  and the key between v and n
> and then  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!!!
> 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss]

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.

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.

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
 
 

El 27/7/21 21:12, "Frank Habicht"  escribió:

Hi Owen,

On 27/07/2021 19:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:26 , Frank Habicht  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  and the key between v and n
and then  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
  

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Frank Habicht]

On 27/07/2021 19:27, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:31 , Frank Habicht > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
>> our customers in Africa" ?
> 
> I have no idea what they did or did not commit to with regards to Africa.
> How is that relevant to the question at hand regarding the amount of address
> space in question?

I really hope we can agree that AfriNIC did never outright "sell" the IP
address space. But gave the right to use subject to justification(s).

If not, we seem to live in different universes.

>> Did CI?
> 
> 7 years ago, CI made such a statement. CI subsequently adapted to the
> changing business
> environment and expanded its operations to include both Africa and other
> continents. CI
> submitted appropriate updates to WHOIS as these changes occurred.

I am not sure whether AfriNIC expanded it's acceptance for the use of IP
resources by CI to the same extent.


>> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
>> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
> 
> Where is your basis in policy for this?

In the justification from CI for the IP address space. which I haven't
seen. Want to share?


Frank

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Frank Habicht]

Hi Owen,

On 27/07/2021 19:09, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:26 , Frank Habicht  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  and the key between v and n
and then  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
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Arnaud AMELINA]

@Noah +1

Le mar. 27 juil. 2021 à 18:41, Noah  a écrit :

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:32 PM Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
> community-discuss@afrinic.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
>> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
>>
>>
>> Where is your basis in policy for this?
>>
>
> Let me attempt to answer your fake question with links that show AFRINIC
> members from some of the 54 AFRICAN countries with real networks in AFRICA.
>
> https://bgp.he.net/country/KE
> https://bgp.he.net/country/TZ
> https://bgp.he.net/country/ZA
> https://bgp.he.net/country/NG
> https://bgp.he.net/country/MU
>
> Or wait... I can not find this so-called LIR *Cloud Innovation Limited* with
> offices in Seychelles using this BGP tool.
>
>
> *https://bgp.he.net/country/SC *
>
> You try so hard to pretend with your alternative reality in your quest to
> defend Heng Lu and his IP ADDRESS SOLUTIONS business run under his
> subsidiary HongKong company Larus  https://www.larus.net/
>
> FYI... "AFRINIC has never approved any application for IP space for the
> purpose of leasing despite having received such requests."
>
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html
>
> Cheers,
> Noah
> PS: The ALLOCATION POLICY is linked to the AFRINIC BYLAWS which are both
> linked to the AFRINIC RSA.
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 7:32 PM Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
community-discuss@afrinic.net> wrote:

>
> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
>
>
> Where is your basis in policy for this?
>

Let me attempt to answer your fake question with links that show AFRINIC
members from some of the 54 AFRICAN countries with real networks in AFRICA.

https://bgp.he.net/country/KE
https://bgp.he.net/country/TZ
https://bgp.he.net/country/ZA
https://bgp.he.net/country/NG
https://bgp.he.net/country/MU

Or wait... I can not find this so-called LIR *Cloud Innovation Limited* with
offices in Seychelles using this BGP tool.


*https://bgp.he.net/country/SC *

You try so hard to pretend with your alternative reality in your quest to
defend Heng Lu and his IP ADDRESS SOLUTIONS business run under his
subsidiary HongKong company Larus  https://www.larus.net/

FYI... "AFRINIC has never approved any application for IP space for the
purpose of leasing despite having received such requests."

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html

Cheers,
Noah
PS: The ALLOCATION POLICY is linked to the AFRINIC BYLAWS which are both
linked to the AFRINIC RSA.
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Leo S]

I just share the information that I know. And seeing a bunch of mercenaries
and Water Army in the community is very disgusting.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 7:39 PM Anthony Ubah 
wrote:

> Dear Leo S,
>
> You are churning out awesome figures here, unarguably so. However, I wish
> you can spare some time to responded to my question on motive.
> While this is all now glaring, it is important to know if you are here
> shedding light, providing heat, or fanning smokes into our eyes?
> You seem to be baiting the community with your posts. *"This is good news
> for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP address for the
> end user."*
>
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Anthony*
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:01 AM Leo S  wrote:
>
>> These addresses are worth more than 100 million US dollars. If the
>> address is revoked. For them, they will face a loss of 90% of their income
>> Forced to close business. They will go all out, For Cloud Innovation Ltd,
>> this is more than 100 million US dollars in cash. For AFRINIC it's a mere
>> $10,000 USD. Actions that can be taken in the face of such a large amount
>> of money so I think AFRINIC may fail finally or compromise.
>>
>> This is good news for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the
>> IP address for the end user.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo,
>>> shades no light to present discussion at hand.
>>> To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng”
>>> guy.
>>> This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no
>>> question whether this is a personal attack or not.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Elvis.
>>>
>>> > On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > In message <
>>> cakkt+fdleydt7jqvmvsruuh5ouhl4xvvpb1bbikscx5wocg...@mail.gmail.com>
>>> > Wijdane Goubi  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A
>>> few
>>> >> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is
>>> smart
>>> >> and knows who should pay the money to.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged
>>> in
>>> >> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
>>> >
>>> > I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above,
>>> contitutes
>>> > "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it
>>> was
>>> > inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
>>> > the present discussion.
>>> >
>>> > I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this
>>> mailing
>>> > list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps
>>> that
>>> > explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
>>> > such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and
>>> without
>>> > adequate thought.
>>> >
>>> > I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract
>>> that
>>> > one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already
>>> have
>>> > more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't
>>> be
>>> > looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
>>> > ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those
>>> times
>>> > when our passions override our reason.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > rfg
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> > Community-Discuss mailing list
>>> > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>>
>> ___
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 06:19 , Noah  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 15:20 Antone Ubah,  > wrote:
> Oh Noah,
> 
> 'Afraid' you say? Of what? Of whom? What are my stakes? What are your stakes?
> There is an ongoing legal process between parties involved, am I wrong? If 
> anyone or group has input to that, is it not right to funnel such down the 
> appropriate channels?
> 
> 
> Or are you the arm behind the puppets? The grand puppeteer popping up 
> characters to incite friction.樂
> 
> 
> As far as I know and for a fact, you Antony are a puppet associated with Heng 
> Lu.

Do you have evidence to support this ad hominem?

> I know this for a fact and enough data to prove it.

Then please do share?

> Whoever Lili Au is, they have the right to speak and dont call them trolls.

It is interesting how you simultaneously engage in ad hominem against one 
person while calling for an end
to ad hominem against another. In reality, the ad hominem should stop in both 
directions. You should stop
making ad hominem attacks and so should Anthony (and anyone else).

Owen


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:31 , Frank Habicht  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
> our customers in Africa" ?

I have no idea what they did or did not commit to with regards to Africa.
How is that relevant to the question at hand regarding the amount of address
space in question?

> Did CI?

7 years ago, CI made such a statement. CI subsequently adapted to the changing 
business
environment and expanded its operations to include both Africa and other 
continents. CI
submitted appropriate updates to WHOIS as these changes occurred.

> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.

Where is your basis in policy for this?

Owen

> 
> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
>> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider
>> the amount of space
>> held by:
>> 
>> Non-LIRs (end users):
>> Hewlett Packard
>> Apple Computer
>> 
>> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
>> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
>> 
>> LIRs:
>> XFINITY/Comcast
>> Verizon
>> Akamai
>> XO Communications
>> Amazon
>> Microsoft
>> Google
>> etc.
>> 
>> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
>> above organizations.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S >> >> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ronald
>>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
>>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
>>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
>>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com> 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> 
>>>In message
>>>>>  
>>> >>  
>>> >>
>>>Meriem Dayday mailto:meriemday...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>> 
 This is a direct violation of the CoC.
>>> 
>>>No, actually, it isn't.
>>> 
>>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
>>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
>>>effectively
>>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
>>>number of
>>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net  
>>> >, etc.)
>>> 
>>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
>>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
>>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
>>>is next?  Book burning?
>>> 
 Disclosing such information and data without the company's
>>>consent is a
 clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
 concerned person.
>>> 
>>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
>>>obvious
>>>logical problems.
>>> 
>>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
>>>various
>>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,
>>>without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the
>>>nature
>>>of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private intranet,
>>>then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
>>>detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the
>>>minute any
>>>company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
>>>*voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange
>>>for being
>>>a part of, and a participant on this great communications
>>>experiment we
>>>call the Internet.
>>> 
>>>I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
>>>Innovation.
>>>And yet even well before today I already determined for myself
>>>that well
>>>more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4
>>>address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not
>>>a state
>>>secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100%
>>>public
>>>sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same
>>>information.
>>> 
>>>Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
>>>assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
>>>RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question,
>>>and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
>>>courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine. 
>>>But the
>>>mere facts of how Cloud 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:26 , Frank Habicht  wrote:
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> On 27/07/2021 08:28, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 04:01 , Noah >> > wrote:
>>> So while checking some statistics with a good friend over the weekend,
>>> we just noted that actually Cloud Innovation has more IPv4 addresses
>>> than East African countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and I won't
>>> even bother posting for Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan because its sad.
>> 
>> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

Regarding the former statement, things do change over time. At the time the 
statement was made, it was true.
Today, the statement “many of the resources we received from AFRINIC are being 
used in Africa” would be more accurate.

> 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 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.

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.

Owen


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Leo S]

You are right. You are a professional, I think you will not ignore the
allocation date such as you listed

held by:

Non-LIRs (end users):
Hewlett Packard
Apple Computer

Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
Amateur Radio (AMPR)

LIRs:
XFINITY/Comcast
Verizon
Akamai
XO Communications
Amazon
Microsoft
Google
etc.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:24 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider
> the amount of space
> held by:
>
> Non-LIRs (end users):
> Hewlett Packard
> Apple Computer
>
> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
>
> LIRs:
> XFINITY/Comcast
> Verizon
> Akamai
> XO Communications
> Amazon
> Microsoft
> Google
> etc.
>
> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the above
> organizations.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S  wrote:
>
> Hi Ronald
> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a shocking
> number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block allocated. This
> is not in 199x year.
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette 
> wrote:
>
>> In message <
>> calm9cbn+r9oen9+9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com>
>> Meriem Dayday  wrote:
>>
>> >This is a direct violation of the CoC.
>>
>> No, actually, it isn't.
>>
>> The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
>> it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is effectively
>> public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any number of
>> public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net, etc.)
>>
>> If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
>> affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
>> telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
>> is next?  Book burning?
>>
>> >Disclosing such information and data without the company's consent is a
>> >clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>> >concerned person.
>>
>> OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different obvious
>> logical problems.
>>
>> First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what various
>> companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,
>> without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the nature
>> of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private intranet,
>> then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
>> detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the minute any
>> company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
>> *voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange for being
>> a part of, and a participant on this great communications experiment we
>> call the Internet.
>>
>> I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
>> Innovation.
>> And yet even well before today I already determined for myself that well
>> more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4
>> address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not a state
>> secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100% public
>> sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same
>> information.
>>
>> Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
>> assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
>> RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question,
>> and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
>> courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine.  But the
>> mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned
>> resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the available
>> public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to portray
>> them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship.
>>
>> The second logical problem with the statement above is contained in the
>> part that says "... attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences
>> on the concerned person."
>>
>> Exactly so!  If the guy who posted the material you are reacting to was
>> willing to take the legal risk to post that material, IN SPITE OF the
>> possibility that he could, at least in theory, be sued for defamation,
>> then why are YOU worried about it?  Why should AFRINIC be worried about
>> it?  Obviously, this (theoretical) possibility of a defemation lawsuit
>> is only a problem for the guy who posted the (allegedly) defamatory
>> text, and he obviiously was willing to take the risk in order to express
>> his opinion, SO WHAT IS THAT TO YOU?
>>
>> Here again, shouting down in the original poster in this manner appears
>> to me to be just another a heavy-handed attempt at pointless censorship.
>>
>> I hope that we here can all have open and frank discusions of all of the
>> issues now of concern to AFRINIC without these kinds of attempts to
>> muzzle 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Leo S]

Hi Owen,

I don't know how much you know about your employer.
Cloud Innovation Ltd no employees and equipment. Cloud Innovation Ltd
Authorize these IP address authorization to LARUS Hong Kong doing lease
business. All the LOA I received came from LARUS Hong Kong

LARUS does have employees but AFRINIC assigned the address to Cloud
Innovation Ltd, a paper entity (brief case companies.) with no employees,
equipment and services.


On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:12 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> On Jul 25, 2021, at 09:26 , Leo S  wrote:
>
> Exactly, I am not particularly opposed to their IP leasing business. With
> the current exhaustion of IP addresses, many small ISPs have no choice but
> to obtain IP addresses from them. Large ISPs will choose to purchase IP
> addresses directly. such as alibabacloud.
> The current situation poses risks to users who rent their IP addresses. I
> think the problem itself is AFRINIC's own problem. Who allocated 7 million
> addresses to them? As far as I know, even providers like OVH do not have 7
> million IP addresses. And a paper company can get 7 million IP addresses.
>
>
> Now you have wandered into an inappropriate and false accusation.
>
> Cloud Innovation is NOT a “paper company” or a “shell corporation”. It is
> a legitimate business with customers, revenue, accounting, and provides (by
> your own admission) a valuable service to the IP number using community.
>
> Indeed, a service you found useful and valuable at one time.
>
> I don’t know who OVH is, but I can say that in general, Cloud Innovations
> address space is well utilized and their record-keeping is some of the most
> meticulous I’ve observed in the industry.
>
> Every customer provides a needs justification that would be accepted by
> virtually any RIR they could apply to and CI is careful not to lease to
> spammers and other miscreants.
>
> They are very responsive to abuse complaints and terminate problem
> accounts very quickly.
>
> In short, they are a real company providing a real and valuable service to
> the internet and a model citizen of the IP number resource using community
> with the exception that there is some controversy surrounding the idea of
> leasing numbers without a connectivity contract.
>
> What is truly silly about this is that in reality, it would be trivial for
> them to create connectivity to eliminate this controversy while still
> preserving exactly the same business model in a number of ways. Should the
> community pass a policy that prohibits leasing without connectivity, it
> will be a simple (though inconvenient) matter for Cloud Innovation to
> implement trivial connections to their customers while said customers
> continue to advertise their less specifics to the internet via their other
> providers.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 12:09 AM Andrew Alston <
> andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>> What absolute nonsense - unless there is an NDA protecting the
>> relationship people are free to disclose.
>>
>> That’s like saying I can’t state that I buy jeans from party X - internet
>> services from party Y - or eat a particular brand of chocolate.
>>
>
> You are officially banned from Godiva… There, I said it. What are you
> going to do about it?
> :p
>
> Yes, you are correct, this is utterly silly.
>
> Owen
>
>
>> Sorry unless there are confidentiality clauses in place - absolute
>> rubbish - and if there are - that is between the buyer and the seller and
>> has nothing to do with anyone on here
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>> --
>> *From:* Meriem Dayday 
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 25, 2021 6:53:45 PM
>> *To:* Leo S 
>> *Cc:* community-discuss@afrinic.net 
>> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and
>> their business
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This is a direct violation of the CoC.
>>
>> Disclosing such information and data without the company’s consent is a
>> clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>> concerned person.
>>
>> Having a business or other relationship with the said company does not
>> give you the right to divulge such details on a public mailing list. That
>> is quite appalling.
>>
>> Please refrain from violating the CoC and attacking entities in such
>> manner. It can only be troublesome.
>>
>> I am urging the PDWG chairs to act immediately by sanctioning the sender
>> and deleting this delicate email from the list.
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 15:39, Leo S  a écrit :
>&g

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Lili Au]

Thank you Noah,

Hi everyone,

I'm afraid that I can not share the LOA since it will give them some clues.
But I can say --

- Leo is saying the truth. or even more revenue that CI earns from leasing
service. I know their pricing, I know their business model.
- As I said, CI will issue LOA to LARUS, and LARUS issue the LOA to their
client, as you guys may know CI belongs to who, and
- LARUS Limited (a company registered in Hong Kong) belongs to the guy who
we know, for those interested, please check from ICRIS(
https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/), which was created by the Hong Kong
government - Company Registry. it's public record, you just need to pay
11HKD(1.41USD) to check:)
- I don't know much about Africa on Cloud, but please check their ASN, it's
interesting when you look at those ranges:) Oh, a few months ago I received
a call before from LARUS about the election and they want me to vote for
Mr. Paul Wallner, anyone else got this call too?
- Some guys keep talking here is hired by CI or LARUS, apparently,
- Anyone can lease IP address from LARUS: https://ipv4.larus.net/, you just
need to fill in some information and pay. then you will get an LOA within
few days, most of their blocks from CI, only around 1% from other
companies(their management service)
- LARUS keep leasing out CI's IP blocks, but for those idle blocks, CI will
keep broadcast under some ASNs like AS328608 (South Africa), AS35916 (USA),
or AS134548 (HK)

At last, I got a question is When AFRINIC will open Inter-RIR transfer
policy? I'm pretty sure that CI will transfer all the IP blocks to other
RIR:)

Best

Noah  於 2021年7月27日 週二 下午9:20寫道：

>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 15:20 Antone Ubah, 
> wrote:
>
>> Oh Noah,
>>
>> 'Afraid' you say? Of what? Of whom? What are my stakes? What are your
>> stakes?
>> There is an ongoing legal process between parties involved, am I wrong?
>> If anyone or group has input to that, is it not right to funnel such down
>> the appropriate channels?
>>
>>
>> Or are you the arm behind the puppets? The grand puppeteer popping up
>> characters to incite friction.樂
>>
>
>
> As far as I know and for a fact, you Antony are a puppet associated with
> Heng Lu.
>
> I know this for a fact and enough data to prove it.
>
> Whoever Lili Au is, they have the right to speak and dont call them trolls.
>
> Noah
>
>
>
>> Then again, what are your stakes?
>>
>>
>> Lili is free to air his/her/their views, however it makes sense to do it
>> right, not for commotion sake.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:00 AM Noah  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 14:51 Anthony Ubah, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Didin't co...@afrinic.net already close this thread?

 Here's another bait email trolling the community.

>>>
>>> Let Lili Au speak. What are you afraid of?
>>>
>>> Comms dont have the authority to close any thread.
>>>
>>> They only cautioned on violation of CoC.
>>>
>>> Noah
>>>

 *Best Regards,*

 *Anthony*


 On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 5:45 AM Lili Au  wrote:

> A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS
> ( a Hong Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is
> correct.
>
> —
>
> > Frank Habicht 於2021年7月27日 15:32寫道：
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to
> connect
> > our customers in Africa" ?
> >
> > Did CI?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank
> >
> > PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
> > just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
> >
> >> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
> >> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please
> consider
> >> the amount of space
> >> held by:
> >>
> >> Non-LIRs (end users):
> >> Hewlett Packard
> >> Apple Computer
> >>
> >> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
> >> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
> >>
> >> LIRs:
> >> XFINITY/Comcast
> >> Verizon
> >> Akamai
> >> XO Communications
> >> Amazon
> >> Microsoft
> >> Google
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
> >> above organizations.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ronald
> >>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
> >>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
> >>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
> >>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>In message
> >>><
> calm9cbn+r9oen9+9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com
>  

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Murungi Daniel via Community-Discuss]

Dear Paschal,

As I have explicitly stated before, I do not agree with personal attacks 
against anyone with differing opinions. It is clear that there are still 
community members who have information pertinent to this thread that the 
community should know about (IMHO).

Given what is at stake, and with all due respect to the AFRINIC COMMS team, If 
that earns me a slap on the wrist (not the face :) ), then so be it.

Regards,
Daniel

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 4:18 PM, Paschal Ochang  wrote:
> 
> This thread is not open according to the mail below. Unless as usual you want 
> the whole community to ignore calls for regard of authority and go down the 
> lane of non moderation of discussions.
> 
> On Monday, July 26, 2021, AFRINIC Communication  > wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> We kindly ask you all to refrain from continuing with this thread as it seems 
> to be mostly geared towards personal attacks.
> 
> Regardless of the motive, AFRINIC may be forced to issue warnings to those 
> who do not comply and choose to ignore this message.
> 
> Also please refer to the email sent this morning on the AFRINIC Code of 
> Conduct: 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-July/004278.html 
> 
> 
> Regards
> AFRINIC Communications
> 
> ……
> 
> 
> Chers collègues,
> 
> Nous vous invitons à vous abstenir de poursuivre ce fil de discussion, car il 
> semble être principalement orienté vers des attaques personnelles.
> 
> Quel qu'en soit le motif, l'AFRINIC pourrait être contrainte d'émettre des 
> avertissements à ceux qui ne se conforment pas et choisissent d'ignorer ce 
> message.
> 
> Veuillez également vous référer à l'email que nous avons envoyé ce matin sur 
> le code de conduite de l'AFRINIC : 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-July/004278.html 
> 
> 
> Cordialement,
> AFRINIC Communications
> 
> 
>> On 26 Jul 2021, at 15:39, Anthony Ubah > > wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Leo S,
>> 
>> You are churning out awesome figures here, unarguably so. However, I wish 
>> you can spare some time to responded to my question on motive.
>> While this is all now glaring, it is important to know if you are here 
>> shedding light, providing heat, or fanning smokes into our eyes? 
>> You seem to be baiting the community with your posts. "This is good news for 
>> ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP address for the end 
>> user."
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Anthony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:01 AM Leo S > > wrote:
>> These addresses are worth more than 100 million US dollars. If the address 
>> is revoked. For them, they will face a loss of 90% of their income Forced to 
>> close business. They will go all out, For Cloud Innovation Ltd, this is more 
>> than 100 million US dollars in cash. For AFRINIC it's a mere $10,000 USD. 
>> Actions that can be taken in the face of such a large amount of money so I 
>> think AFRINIC may fail finally or compromise.
>> 
>> This is good news for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP 
>> address for the end user.
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis > > wrote:
>> Hello, 
>> 
>> This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo, 
>> shades no light to present discussion at hand.
>> To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng” guy. 
>> This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no 
>> question whether this is a personal attack or not. 
>> 
>> Best, 
>> Elvis.
>> 
>> > On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > In message 
>> > > > >
>> > Wijdane Goubi mailto:goubi.wijd...@gmail.com>> 
>> > wrote:
>> > 
>> >> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few
>> >> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart
>> >> and knows who should pay the money to.
>> >> 
>> >>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged in
>> >> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
>> > 
>> > I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above, 
>> > contitutes
>> > "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it was
>> > inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
>> > the present discussion.
>> > 
>> > I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this mailing
>> > list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps that
>> > explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
>> > such utterances when they are made in 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 15:20 Antone Ubah,  wrote:

> Oh Noah,
>
> 'Afraid' you say? Of what? Of whom? What are my stakes? What are your
> stakes?
> There is an ongoing legal process between parties involved, am I wrong? If
> anyone or group has input to that, is it not right to funnel such down the
> appropriate channels?
>
>
> Or are you the arm behind the puppets? The grand puppeteer popping up
> characters to incite friction.樂
>


As far as I know and for a fact, you Antony are a puppet associated with
Heng Lu.

I know this for a fact and enough data to prove it.

Whoever Lili Au is, they have the right to speak and dont call them trolls.

Noah



> Then again, what are your stakes?
>
>
> Lili is free to air his/her/their views, however it makes sense to do it
> right, not for commotion sake.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:00 AM Noah  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 14:51 Anthony Ubah,  wrote:
>>
>>> Didin't co...@afrinic.net already close this thread?
>>>
>>> Here's another bait email trolling the community.
>>>
>>
>> Let Lili Au speak. What are you afraid of?
>>
>> Comms dont have the authority to close any thread.
>>
>> They only cautioned on violation of CoC.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>>>
>>> *Best Regards,*
>>>
>>> *Anthony*
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 5:45 AM Lili Au  wrote:
>>>
 A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS (
 a Hong Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is
 correct.

 —

 > Frank Habicht 於2021年7月27日 15:32寫道：
 >
 > Hi,
 >
 > did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to
 connect
 > our customers in Africa" ?
 >
 > Did CI?
 >
 > Thanks,
 > Frank
 >
 > PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
 > just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
 >
 >> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
 >> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please
 consider
 >> the amount of space
 >> held by:
 >>
 >> Non-LIRs (end users):
 >> Hewlett Packard
 >> Apple Computer
 >>
 >> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
 >> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
 >>
 >> LIRs:
 >> XFINITY/Comcast
 >> Verizon
 >> Akamai
 >> XO Communications
 >> Amazon
 >> Microsoft
 >> Google
 >> etc.
 >>
 >> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
 >> above organizations.
 >>
 >> Owen
 >>
 >>
 >>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S >>> >>> > wrote:
 >>>
 >>> Hi Ronald
 >>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
 >>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
 >>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
 >>>
 >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
 >>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
 >>>
 >>>In message
 >>><
 calm9cbn+r9oen9+9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com
 >>> calm9cbn%2br9oen9%2b9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com
 >>
 >>>Meriem Dayday >>> >>>> wrote:
 >>>
  This is a direct violation of the CoC.
 >>>
 >>>No, actually, it isn't.
 >>>
 >>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making
 use of
 >>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
 >>>effectively
 >>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
 >>>number of
 >>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net ,
 etc.)
 >>>
 >>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider
 it an
 >>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through
 the
 >>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then
 what
 >>>is next?  Book burning?
 >>>
  Disclosing such information and data without the company's
 >>>consent is a
  clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
  concerned person.
 >>>
 >>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
 >>>obvious
 >>>logical problems.
 >>>
 >>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about
 what
 >>>various
 >>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to
 learn,
 >>>without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is
 the
 >>>nature
 >>>of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private
 intranet,
 >>>then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every
 last
 >>>detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Paschal Ochang]

This thread is not open according to the mail below. Unless as usual you
want the whole community to ignore calls for regard of authority and go
down the lane of non moderation of discussions.

On Monday, July 26, 2021, AFRINIC Communication  wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> We kindly ask you all to refrain from continuing with this thread as it
> seems to be mostly geared towards personal attacks.
>
> Regardless of the motive, AFRINIC may be forced to issue warnings to those
> who do not comply and choose to ignore this message.
>
> Also please refer to the email sent this morning on the AFRINIC Code of
> Conduct:
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/
> 2021-July/004278.html
>
> Regards
> AFRINIC Communications
>
> ……
>
>
> Chers collègues,
>
> Nous vous invitons à vous abstenir de poursuivre ce fil de discussion, car
> il semble être principalement orienté vers des attaques personnelles.
>
> Quel qu'en soit le motif, l'AFRINIC pourrait être contrainte d'émettre des
> avertissements à ceux qui ne se conforment pas et choisissent d'ignorer ce
> message.
>
> Veuillez également vous référer à l'email que nous avons envoyé ce matin
> sur le code de conduite de l'AFRINIC : https://lists.afrinic.net/
> pipermail/community-discuss/2021-July/004278.html
>
> Cordialement,
> AFRINIC Communications
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2021, at 15:39, Anthony Ubah  wrote:
>
> Dear Leo S,
>
> You are churning out awesome figures here, unarguably so. However, I wish
> you can spare some time to responded to my question on motive.
> While this is all now glaring, it is important to know if you are here
> shedding light, providing heat, or fanning smokes into our eyes?
> You seem to be baiting the community with your posts. *"This is good news
> for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP address for the
> end user."*
>
>
> *Regards,*
>
> *Anthony*
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:01 AM Leo S  wrote:
>
>> These addresses are worth more than 100 million US dollars. If the
>> address is revoked. For them, they will face a loss of 90% of their income
>> Forced to close business. They will go all out, For Cloud Innovation Ltd,
>> this is more than 100 million US dollars in cash. For AFRINIC it's a mere
>> $10,000 USD. Actions that can be taken in the face of such a large amount
>> of money so I think AFRINIC may fail finally or compromise.
>>
>> This is good news for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the
>> IP address for the end user.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo,
>>> shades no light to present discussion at hand.
>>> To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng”
>>> guy.
>>> This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no
>>> question whether this is a personal attack or not.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Elvis.
>>>
>>> > On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette 
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > In message >> bbikscx5wocg...@mail.gmail.com>
>>> > Wijdane Goubi  wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A
>>> few
>>> >> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is
>>> smart
>>> >> and knows who should pay the money to.
>>> >>
>>> >>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged
>>> in
>>> >> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
>>> >
>>> > I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above,
>>> contitutes
>>> > "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it
>>> was
>>> > inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
>>> > the present discussion.
>>> >
>>> > I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this
>>> mailing
>>> > list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps
>>> that
>>> > explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
>>> > such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and
>>> without
>>> > adequate thought.
>>> >
>>> > I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract
>>> that
>>> > one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already
>>> have
>>> > more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't
>>> be
>>> > looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
>>> > ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those
>>> times
>>> > when our passions override our reason.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> > rfg
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > ___
>>> > Community-Discuss mailing list
>>> > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>>> 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Murungi Daniel via Community-Discuss]

Dear Ubah,

I see you are at it again with gas lighting and insinuations. The thread is 
still open and clearly community members still have input. 

@Lili Au, please do not get intimidated by bogus open ended questions. Kindly 
share with the community whatever information you feel is pertinent to the 
discussion at hand.


Regards,
Murungi Daniel 

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 3:20 PM, Antone Ubah  wrote:
> 
> Oh Noah,
> 
> 'Afraid' you say? Of what? Of whom? What are my stakes? What are your stakes?
> There is an ongoing legal process between parties involved, am I wrong? If 
> anyone or group has input to that, is it not right to funnel such down the 
> appropriate channels?
> 
> 
> Or are you the arm behind the puppets? The grand puppeteer popping up 
> characters to incite friction.樂
> 
> Then again, what are your stakes?
> 
> 
> Lili is free to air his/her/their views, however it makes sense to do it 
> right, not for commotion sake.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony
> 
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:00 AM Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 14:51 Anthony Ubah,  > wrote:
> Didin't co...@afrinic.net  already close this 
> thread? 
> 
> Here's another bait email trolling the community.
> 
> Let Lili Au speak. What are you afraid of?
> 
> Comms dont have the authority to close any thread.
> 
> They only cautioned on violation of CoC.
> 
> Noah
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 5:45 AM Lili Au  > wrote:
> A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS ( a 
> Hong Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is correct.
> 
> —
> 
> > Frank Habicht mailto:ge...@geier.ne.tz>>於2021年7月27日 
> > 15:32寫道：
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
> > our customers in Africa" ?
> > 
> > Did CI?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Frank
> > 
> > PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
> > just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
> > 
> >> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
> >> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider
> >> the amount of space
> >> held by:
> >> 
> >> Non-LIRs (end users):
> >> Hewlett Packard
> >> Apple Computer
> >> 
> >> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
> >> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
> >> 
> >> LIRs:
> >> XFINITY/Comcast
> >> Verizon
> >> Akamai
> >> XO Communications
> >> Amazon
> >> Microsoft
> >> Google
> >> etc.
> >> 
> >> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
> >> above organizations.
> >> 
> >> Owen
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S  >>> 
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Ronald
> >>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
> >>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
> >>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
> >>> 
> >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
> >>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com> 
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>In message
> >>> >>> 
> >>>  
> >>>  >>>  
> >>> >>
> >>>Meriem Dayday mailto:meriemday...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>> 
>  This is a direct violation of the CoC.
> >>> 
> >>>No, actually, it isn't.
> >>> 
> >>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
> >>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
> >>>effectively
> >>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
> >>>number of
> >>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net  
> >>> >, etc.)
> >>> 
> >>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
> >>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
> >>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
> >>>is next?  Book burning?
> >>> 
>  Disclosing such information and data without the company's
> >>>consent is a
>  clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>  concerned person.
> >>> 
> >>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
> >>>obvious
> >>>logical problems.
> >>> 
> >>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
> >>>various
> >>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,
> >>>without 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Antone Ubah]

Oh Noah,

'Afraid' you say? Of what? Of whom? What are my stakes? What are your
stakes?
There is an ongoing legal process between parties involved, am I wrong? If
anyone or group has input to that, is it not right to funnel such down the
appropriate channels?


Or are you the arm behind the puppets? The grand puppeteer popping up
characters to incite friction.樂

Then again, what are your stakes?


Lili is free to air his/her/their views, however it makes sense to do it
right, not for commotion sake.


Regards,

Anthony

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021, 8:00 AM Noah  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 14:51 Anthony Ubah,  wrote:
>
>> Didin't co...@afrinic.net already close this thread?
>>
>> Here's another bait email trolling the community.
>>
>
> Let Lili Au speak. What are you afraid of?
>
> Comms dont have the authority to close any thread.
>
> They only cautioned on violation of CoC.
>
> Noah
>
>>
>> *Best Regards,*
>>
>> *Anthony*
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 5:45 AM Lili Au  wrote:
>>
>>> A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS (
>>> a Hong Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is
>>> correct.
>>>
>>> —
>>>
>>> > Frank Habicht 於2021年7月27日 15:32寫道：
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to
>>> connect
>>> > our customers in Africa" ?
>>> >
>>> > Did CI?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Frank
>>> >
>>> > PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
>>> > just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
>>> >
>>> >> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
>>> >> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please
>>> consider
>>> >> the amount of space
>>> >> held by:
>>> >>
>>> >> Non-LIRs (end users):
>>> >> Hewlett Packard
>>> >> Apple Computer
>>> >>
>>> >> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
>>> >> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
>>> >>
>>> >> LIRs:
>>> >> XFINITY/Comcast
>>> >> Verizon
>>> >> Akamai
>>> >> XO Communications
>>> >> Amazon
>>> >> Microsoft
>>> >> Google
>>> >> etc.
>>> >>
>>> >> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
>>> >> above organizations.
>>> >>
>>> >> Owen
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Hi Ronald
>>> >>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
>>> >>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
>>> >>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
>>> >>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>In message
>>> >>><
>>> calm9cbn+r9oen9+9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com
>>> >> calm9cbn%2br9oen9%2b9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com>>
>>> >>>Meriem Dayday >> >>>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>>  This is a direct violation of the CoC.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>No, actually, it isn't.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making
>>> use of
>>> >>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
>>> >>>effectively
>>> >>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
>>> >>>number of
>>> >>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net ,
>>> etc.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider
>>> it an
>>> >>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through
>>> the
>>> >>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then
>>> what
>>> >>>is next?  Book burning?
>>> >>>
>>>  Disclosing such information and data without the company's
>>> >>>consent is a
>>>  clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>>>  concerned person.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
>>> >>>obvious
>>> >>>logical problems.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
>>> >>>various
>>> >>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to
>>> learn,
>>> >>>without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the
>>> >>>nature
>>> >>>of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private
>>> intranet,
>>> >>>then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every
>>> last
>>> >>>detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the
>>> >>>minute any
>>> >>>company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those,
>>> it
>>> >>>*voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange
>>> >>>for being
>>> >>>a part of, and a participant on this great communications
>>> >>>experiment we
>>> >>>call the Internet.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
>>> >>>Innovation.
>>> >>>And yet 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 14:51 Anthony Ubah,  wrote:

> Didin't co...@afrinic.net already close this thread?
>
> Here's another bait email trolling the community.
>

Let Lili Au speak. What are you afraid of?

Comms dont have the authority to close any thread.

They only cautioned on violation of CoC.

Noah

>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *Anthony*
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 5:45 AM Lili Au  wrote:
>
>> A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS ( a
>> Hong Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is
>> correct.
>>
>> —
>>
>> > Frank Habicht 於2021年7月27日 15:32寫道：
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
>> > our customers in Africa" ?
>> >
>> > Did CI?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Frank
>> >
>> > PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
>> > just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
>> >
>> >> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
>> >> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please
>> consider
>> >> the amount of space
>> >> held by:
>> >>
>> >> Non-LIRs (end users):
>> >> Hewlett Packard
>> >> Apple Computer
>> >>
>> >> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
>> >> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
>> >>
>> >> LIRs:
>> >> XFINITY/Comcast
>> >> Verizon
>> >> Akamai
>> >> XO Communications
>> >> Amazon
>> >> Microsoft
>> >> Google
>> >> etc.
>> >>
>> >> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
>> >> above organizations.
>> >>
>> >> Owen
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S > >>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Ronald
>> >>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
>> >>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
>> >>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
>> >>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>In message
>> >>><
>> calm9cbn+r9oen9+9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com
>> > calm9cbn%2br9oen9%2b9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com>>
>> >>>Meriem Dayday > >>>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  This is a direct violation of the CoC.
>> >>>
>> >>>No, actually, it isn't.
>> >>>
>> >>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use
>> of
>> >>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
>> >>>effectively
>> >>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
>> >>>number of
>> >>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net ,
>> etc.)
>> >>>
>> >>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it
>> an
>> >>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through
>> the
>> >>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then
>> what
>> >>>is next?  Book burning?
>> >>>
>>  Disclosing such information and data without the company's
>> >>>consent is a
>>  clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>>  concerned person.
>> >>>
>> >>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
>> >>>obvious
>> >>>logical problems.
>> >>>
>> >>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
>> >>>various
>> >>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to
>> learn,
>> >>>without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the
>> >>>nature
>> >>>of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private
>> intranet,
>> >>>then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every
>> last
>> >>>detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the
>> >>>minute any
>> >>>company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those,
>> it
>> >>>*voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange
>> >>>for being
>> >>>a part of, and a participant on this great communications
>> >>>experiment we
>> >>>call the Internet.
>> >>>
>> >>>I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
>> >>>Innovation.
>> >>>And yet even well before today I already determined for myself
>> >>>that well
>> >>>more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered
>> IPv4
>> >>>address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not
>> >>>a state
>> >>>secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100%
>> >>>public
>> >>>sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same
>> >>>information.
>> >>>
>> >>>Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
>> >>>assigned number resources does or does not comport with its
>> specific
>> >>>RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate
>> question,
>> >>>and one which I myself 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021, 12:48 Lili Au,  wrote:

> A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS ( a
> Hong Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is
> correct.
>


Lili Au

Please can you share some of those LoA from Cloud Innovation Ltd to Larus.

We will appreciate it.

Noah



> —
>
> > Frank Habicht 於2021年7月27日 15:32寫道：
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
> > our customers in Africa" ?
> >
> > Did CI?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank
> >
> > PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
> > just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
> >
> >> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
> >> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider
> >> the amount of space
> >> held by:
> >>
> >> Non-LIRs (end users):
> >> Hewlett Packard
> >> Apple Computer
> >>
> >> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
> >> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
> >>
> >> LIRs:
> >> XFINITY/Comcast
> >> Verizon
> >> Akamai
> >> XO Communications
> >> Amazon
> >> Microsoft
> >> Google
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
> >> above organizations.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ronald
> >>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
> >>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
> >>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
> >>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>In message
> >>>  calm9cbn%2br9oen9%2b9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com>>
> >>>Meriem Dayday  >>>> wrote:
> >>>
>  This is a direct violation of the CoC.
> >>>
> >>>No, actually, it isn't.
> >>>
> >>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use
> of
> >>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
> >>>effectively
> >>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
> >>>number of
> >>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net ,
> etc.)
> >>>
> >>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it
> an
> >>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
> >>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then
> what
> >>>is next?  Book burning?
> >>>
>  Disclosing such information and data without the company's
> >>>consent is a
>  clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>  concerned person.
> >>>
> >>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
> >>>obvious
> >>>logical problems.
> >>>
> >>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
> >>>various
> >>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to
> learn,
> >>>without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the
> >>>nature
> >>>of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private
> intranet,
> >>>then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
> >>>detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the
> >>>minute any
> >>>company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
> >>>*voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange
> >>>for being
> >>>a part of, and a participant on this great communications
> >>>experiment we
> >>>call the Internet.
> >>>
> >>>I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
> >>>Innovation.
> >>>And yet even well before today I already determined for myself
> >>>that well
> >>>more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered
> IPv4
> >>>address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not
> >>>a state
> >>>secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100%
> >>>public
> >>>sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same
> >>>information.
> >>>
> >>>Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
> >>>assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
> >>>RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate
> question,
> >>>and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
> >>>courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine.
> >>>But the
> >>>mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned
> >>>resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the
> >>>available
> >>>public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to
> portray
> >>>them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship.
> 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Anthony Ubah]

Didin't co...@afrinic.net already close this thread?

Here's another bait email trolling the community.

*Best Regards,*

*Anthony*


On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 5:45 AM Lili Au  wrote:

> A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS ( a
> Hong Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is
> correct.
>
> —
>
> > Frank Habicht 於2021年7月27日 15:32寫道：
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
> > our customers in Africa" ?
> >
> > Did CI?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Frank
> >
> > PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
> > just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
> >
> >> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
> >> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider
> >> the amount of space
> >> held by:
> >>
> >> Non-LIRs (end users):
> >> Hewlett Packard
> >> Apple Computer
> >>
> >> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
> >> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
> >>
> >> LIRs:
> >> XFINITY/Comcast
> >> Verizon
> >> Akamai
> >> XO Communications
> >> Amazon
> >> Microsoft
> >> Google
> >> etc.
> >>
> >> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
> >> above organizations.
> >>
> >> Owen
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S  >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Ronald
> >>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
> >>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
> >>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
> >>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>In message
> >>>  calm9cbn%2br9oen9%2b9ybjfbk5ggtcmemz1yhxgdfw04otc3mx...@mail.gmail.com>>
> >>>Meriem Dayday  >>>> wrote:
> >>>
>  This is a direct violation of the CoC.
> >>>
> >>>No, actually, it isn't.
> >>>
> >>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use
> of
> >>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
> >>>effectively
> >>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
> >>>number of
> >>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net ,
> etc.)
> >>>
> >>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it
> an
> >>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
> >>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then
> what
> >>>is next?  Book burning?
> >>>
>  Disclosing such information and data without the company's
> >>>consent is a
>  clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>  concerned person.
> >>>
> >>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
> >>>obvious
> >>>logical problems.
> >>>
> >>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
> >>>various
> >>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to
> learn,
> >>>without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the
> >>>nature
> >>>of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private
> intranet,
> >>>then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
> >>>detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the
> >>>minute any
> >>>company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
> >>>*voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange
> >>>for being
> >>>a part of, and a participant on this great communications
> >>>experiment we
> >>>call the Internet.
> >>>
> >>>I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
> >>>Innovation.
> >>>And yet even well before today I already determined for myself
> >>>that well
> >>>more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered
> IPv4
> >>>address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not
> >>>a state
> >>>secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100%
> >>>public
> >>>sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same
> >>>information.
> >>>
> >>>Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
> >>>assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
> >>>RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate
> question,
> >>>and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
> >>>courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine.
> >>>But the
> >>>mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned
> >>>resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the
> >>>available
> >>>public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to
> portray
> >>>them as such is just an attempt at 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Lili Au]

A funny discussion. Anyway, I saw many LOA that is CI authorise LARUS ( a Hong 
Kong company too) then LARUS authorise to their clients. Leo is correct.

—

> Frank Habicht 於2021年7月27日 15:32寫道：
> 
> Hi,
> 
> did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
> our customers in Africa" ?
> 
> Did CI?
> 
> Thanks,
> Frank
> 
> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.
> 
>> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
>> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider
>> the amount of space
>> held by:
>> 
>> Non-LIRs (end users):
>> Hewlett Packard
>> Apple Computer
>> 
>> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
>> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
>> 
>> LIRs:
>> XFINITY/Comcast
>> Verizon
>> Akamai
>> XO Communications
>> Amazon
>> Microsoft
>> Google
>> etc.
>> 
>> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
>> above organizations.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ronald
>>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
>>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
>>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
>>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>In message
>>>>> >
>>>Meriem Dayday >>> wrote:
>>> 
 This is a direct violation of the CoC.
>>> 
>>>No, actually, it isn't.
>>> 
>>>The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
>>>it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
>>>effectively
>>>public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
>>>number of
>>>public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net , etc.)
>>> 
>>>If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
>>>affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
>>>telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
>>>is next?  Book burning?
>>> 
 Disclosing such information and data without the company's
>>>consent is a
 clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
 concerned person.
>>> 
>>>OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
>>>obvious
>>>logical problems.
>>> 
>>>First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
>>>various
>>>companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,
>>>without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the
>>>nature
>>>of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private intranet,
>>>then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
>>>detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the
>>>minute any
>>>company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
>>>*voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange
>>>for being
>>>a part of, and a participant on this great communications
>>>experiment we
>>>call the Internet.
>>> 
>>>I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
>>>Innovation.
>>>And yet even well before today I already determined for myself
>>>that well
>>>more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4
>>>address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not
>>>a state
>>>secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100%
>>>public
>>>sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same
>>>information.
>>> 
>>>Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
>>>assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
>>>RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question,
>>>and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
>>>courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine. 
>>>But the
>>>mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned
>>>resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the
>>>available
>>>public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to portray
>>>them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship.
>>> 
>>>The second logical problem with the statement above is contained
>>>in the
>>>part that says "... attempt of defamation and can have legal
>>>consequences
>>>on the concerned person."
>>> 
>>>Exactly so!  If the guy who posted the material you are reacting
>>>to was
>>>willing to take the legal risk to post that material, IN SPITE OF the
>>>possibility that 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect
our customers in Africa" ?

Did CI?

Thanks,
Frank

PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing
just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.

On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
> If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider
> the amount of space
> held by:
> 
> Non-LIRs (end users):
> Hewlett Packard
> Apple Computer
> 
> Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
> Amateur Radio (AMPR)
> 
> LIRs:
> XFINITY/Comcast
> Verizon
> Akamai
> XO Communications
> Amazon
> Microsoft
> Google
> etc.
> 
> The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the
> above organizations.
> 
> Owen
> 
> 
>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S > > wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ronald
>> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a
>> shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block
>> allocated. This is not in 199x year.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette
>> mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:
>>
>> In message
>> > >
>> Meriem Dayday > > wrote:
>>
>> >This is a direct violation of the CoC.
>>
>> No, actually, it isn't.
>>
>> The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
>> it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is
>> effectively
>> public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any
>> number of
>> public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net , etc.)
>>
>> If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
>> affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
>> telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
>> is next?  Book burning?
>>
>> >Disclosing such information and data without the company's
>> consent is a
>> >clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>> >concerned person.
>>
>> OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different
>> obvious
>> logical problems.
>>
>> First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what
>> various
>> companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,
>> without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the
>> nature
>> of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private intranet,
>> then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
>> detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the
>> minute any
>> company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
>> *voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange
>> for being
>> a part of, and a participant on this great communications
>> experiment we
>> call the Internet.
>>
>> I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud
>> Innovation.
>> And yet even well before today I already determined for myself
>> that well
>> more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4
>> address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not
>> a state
>> secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100%
>> public
>> sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same
>> information.
>>
>> Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
>> assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
>> RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question,
>> and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
>> courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine. 
>> But the
>> mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned
>> resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the
>> available
>> public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to portray
>> them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship.
>>
>> The second logical problem with the statement above is contained
>> in the
>> part that says "... attempt of defamation and can have legal
>> consequences
>> on the concerned person."
>>
>> Exactly so!  If the guy who posted the material you are reacting
>> to was
>> willing to take the legal risk to post that material, IN SPITE OF the
>> possibility that he could, at least in theory, be sued for defamation,
>> then why are YOU worried about it?  Why should AFRINIC be worried
>> about
>> it?  Obviously, this (theoretical) possibility of a defemation lawsuit
>> is only a problem for the guy who posted the 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <750c5b12-0163-40bb-937e-3a49482d0...@delong.com>, 
Owen DeLong  wrote:

>Cloud Innovation is NOT a "paper company" or a "shell corporation".

Reasonable people may resonably disagree about the exact definition of
those specific terms.

It is certainly the case that, unlike, say, Silicon Valley, or San Francisco,
or New York, or Los Angeles, or Amsterdam, or London, or even Hong Kong,
the Seychelles Islands do not enjoy a worldwide reputation as a hotbed of
innovative young Internet companies.

But of course, there are always exceptions.

It might be helpful to our understanding if either you or Lu Heng would be
so kind as to post some video or photographs of Cloud Innovation's sprawling,
expansive, well-appointed, and well-equipped NOC in the Seychelles Islands,
preferably with one of the many talented and well-trained staff networking
engineers employed there holding up a copy of that day's local Seychelles
newspaper, just so that we can verify.

>Every customer provides a needs justification that would be accepted by
>virtually any RIR they could apply to and CI is careful not to lease to
>spammers and other miscreants.

As I am sure you are aware Owen, the exact definition of "miscreant" when
it comes to online actors varies rather dramatically from place to place
across the globe.  In some places, anything goes, as long as it isn't spam.
Other places are rather less liberal.

Just to take one example, as I understand it, in Mainland China (PRC)
it is illegal to operate either online gambling web sites or online porn
web sites.

Can you state for the record, and definitively, that there are no such
web sites, written in the Chinese language and targeting PRC nationals,
that are currently hosted on any part of Cloud Innovantion's IPv4 address
space?

If not, then the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) might perhaps take issue
with your blanket assertion that there are no "miscreants" currently making
use of Cloud Innovantion's IPv4 address space.  (I myself would not, but as
a U.S. citizen I have a rather significantly different view on these things.)


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Frank Habicht]

Hi Owen,

On 27/07/2021 08:28, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jul 26, 2021, at 04:01 , Noah > > wrote:
>> So while checking some statistics with a good friend over the weekend,
>> we just noted that actually Cloud Innovation has more IPv4 addresses
>> than East African countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and I won't
>> even bother posting for Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan because its sad.
> 
> It also serves more end users than the population of all of those
> countries combined. What is your point?

"serves" ...?
with connectivity?
Or by "buying" IPv4 addresses one place and "selling"/leasing them
another place.

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.

which is a quote from
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2014/004161.html

and which I understand was good reason to receive IPv4 addresses.
*was*
when it was true.

Frank

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 26, 2021, at 04:01 , Noah  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, 19:32 Leo S,  > wrote:
> 
> The current situation poses risks to users who rent their IP addresses. I 
> think the problem itself is AFRINIC's own problem. Who allocated 7 million 
> addresses to them? As far as I know, even providers like OVH do not have 7 
> million IP addresses. And a paper company can get 7 million IP addresses.
> 
> 
> This part of the world, we call them brief case companies.
> 
> So while checking some statistics with a good friend over the weekend, we 
> just noted that actually Cloud Innovation has more IPv4 addresses than East 
> African countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and I won't even bother posting 
> for Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan because its sad.

It also serves more end users than the population of all of those countries 
combined. What is your point?


> If anyone cares, download the delegated file and run below command.
> 
> Kenya as a country with all its AFRINIC resource members has a total of 
> 6099456 IPv4 addresses. That is about 6 Million only.
> 
> $ awk -F '|' '$2=="KE" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}' 
> delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723 
> 6099456
> 
> Tanzania as a country with all its AFRINIC resource members has a total of 
> 1037568 IPv4 addresses. That is about 1 Million only.
> 
> $ awk -F '|' '$2=="TZ" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}' 
> delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723 
> 1037568
> 
> Uganda as a country with all its AFRINIC resource members has a total of 
> 1410048 IPv4 addresses. That is 1.4 Million only.
> 
> $ awk -F '|' '$2=="UG" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}' 
> delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723  
> 1410048
> 
> We also looked at the total number of IPv4 addresses allocated to Nigeria, 
> one of the biggest AFRICAN economies and sadly they sit at a total of about 
> 3Million IPv4 addresses. 
> 
> $ awk -F '|' '$2=="NG" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}' 
> delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723 
> 3126784
> 
> I mean, Leo my brother, I totally resonate with your point of view on how the 
> heck did bloody Cloud Innovation Ltd end up with 6 Million IPv4 addresses 
> without any reasonable network on this continent.  

By submitting appropriate applications and justified need for the addresses to 
provide services to their customers within the rules and policies set by the 
AFRINIC board, membership, and community.

> Owen always claims that it is what it is, but accountability can not be 
> avoided and anyone who dodges attempts to be held accountable is a bad actor.

I don’t see anyone trying to avoid accountability here except for perhaps the 
AFRINIC staff and the AFRINIC board. Cloud Innovation has been accountable for 
their use of addresses and continues to be.

> Waiting to be sued.

I can’t see any reason to sue you, you’re just not that relevant.

Owen

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider the 
amount of space
held by:

Non-LIRs (end users):
Hewlett Packard
Apple Computer

Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
Amateur Radio (AMPR)

LIRs:
XFINITY/Comcast
Verizon
Akamai
XO Communications
Amazon
Microsoft
Google
etc.

The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the above 
organizations.

Owen


> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S  wrote:
> 
> Hi Ronald
> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a shocking 
> number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block allocated. This is 
> not in 199x year.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette  > wrote:
> In message 
>  >
> Meriem Dayday mailto:meriemday...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> >This is a direct violation of the CoC.
> 
> No, actually, it isn't.
> 
> The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
> it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is effectively
> public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any number of
> public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net , etc.)
> 
> If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
> affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
> telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
> is next?  Book burning?
> 
> >Disclosing such information and data without the company's consent is a
> >clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
> >concerned person.
> 
> OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different obvious
> logical problems.
> 
> First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what various
> companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,
> without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the nature
> of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private intranet,
> then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
> detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the minute any
> company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
> *voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange for being
> a part of, and a participant on this great communications experiment we 
> call the Internet.
> 
> I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud Innovation.
> And yet even well before today I already determined for myself that well
> more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4
> address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not a state
> secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100% public
> sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same information.
> 
> Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
> assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
> RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question,
> and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
> courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine.  But the
> mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned
> resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the available
> public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to portray
> them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship.
> 
> The second logical problem with the statement above is contained in the
> part that says "... attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences
> on the concerned person."
> 
> Exactly so!  If the guy who posted the material you are reacting to was
> willing to take the legal risk to post that material, IN SPITE OF the
> possibility that he could, at least in theory, be sued for defamation,
> then why are YOU worried about it?  Why should AFRINIC be worried about
> it?  Obviously, this (theoretical) possibility of a defemation lawsuit
> is only a problem for the guy who posted the (allegedly) defamatory
> text, and he obviiously was willing to take the risk in order to express
> his opinion, SO WHAT IS THAT TO YOU?
> 
> Here again, shouting down in the original poster in this manner appears
> to me to be just another a heavy-handed attempt at pointless censorship.
> 
> I hope that we here can all have open and frank discusions of all of the
> issues now of concern to AFRINIC without these kinds of attempts to
> muzzle dissenting viewpoints based on perfectly silly arguments.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 25, 2021, at 13:23 , Ronald F. Guilmette  
> wrote:
> 
> In message 
> 
> Meriem Dayday  wrote:
> 
>> This is a direct violation of the CoC.
> 
> No, actually, it isn't.
> 
> The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
> it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is effectively
> public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any number of
> public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net, etc.)
> 
> If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
> affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
> telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
> is next?  Book burning?

Given past experiences, in Africa, more likely government-controlled
internet shutdowns.

As to the bit about censorship and such, I completely agree with you.
There’s no basis for shouting down Leo S.

Owen



___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 25, 2021, at 09:26 , Leo S  wrote:
> 
> Exactly, I am not particularly opposed to their IP leasing business. With the 
> current exhaustion of IP addresses, many small ISPs have no choice but to 
> obtain IP addresses from them. Large ISPs will choose to purchase IP 
> addresses directly. such as alibabacloud.
> The current situation poses risks to users who rent their IP addresses. I 
> think the problem itself is AFRINIC's own problem. Who allocated 7 million 
> addresses to them? As far as I know, even providers like OVH do not have 7 
> million IP addresses. And a paper company can get 7 million IP addresses.

Now you have wandered into an inappropriate and false accusation.

Cloud Innovation is NOT a “paper company” or a “shell corporation”. It is a 
legitimate business with customers, revenue, accounting, and provides (by your 
own admission) a valuable service to the IP number using community.

Indeed, a service you found useful and valuable at one time.

I don’t know who OVH is, but I can say that in general, Cloud Innovations 
address space is well utilized and their record-keeping is some of the most 
meticulous I’ve observed in the industry.

Every customer provides a needs justification that would be accepted by 
virtually any RIR they could apply to and CI is careful not to lease to 
spammers and other miscreants.

They are very responsive to abuse complaints and terminate problem accounts 
very quickly.

In short, they are a real company providing a real and valuable service to the 
internet and a model citizen of the IP number resource using community with the 
exception that there is some controversy surrounding the idea of leasing 
numbers without a connectivity contract.

What is truly silly about this is that in reality, it would be trivial for them 
to create connectivity to eliminate this controversy while still preserving 
exactly the same business model in a number of ways. Should the community pass 
a policy that prohibits leasing without connectivity, it will be a simple 
(though inconvenient) matter for Cloud Innovation to implement trivial 
connections to their customers while said customers continue to advertise their 
less specifics to the internet via their other providers.


> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 12:09 AM Andrew Alston 
> mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> 
> wrote:
> What absolute nonsense - unless there is an NDA protecting the relationship 
> people are free to disclose.
> 
> That’s like saying I can’t state that I buy jeans from party X - internet 
> services from party Y - or eat a particular brand of chocolate.

You are officially banned from Godiva… There, I said it. What are you going to 
do about it?
:p

Yes, you are correct, this is utterly silly.

Owen

> 
> Sorry unless there are confidentiality clauses in place - absolute rubbish - 
> and if there are - that is between the buyer and the seller and has nothing 
> to do with anyone on here 
> 
> Andrew 
> 
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> From: Meriem Dayday mailto:meriemday...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 6:53:45 PM
> To: Leo S mailto:le...@afcast.com>>
> Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net <mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net> 
> mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their 
> business
>  
> Hello, 
> 
> This is a direct violation of the CoC. 
> 
> Disclosing such information and data without the company’s consent is a clear 
> attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the concerned 
> person. 
> 
> Having a business or other relationship with the said company does not give 
> you the right to divulge such details on a public mailing list. That is quite 
> appalling.
> 
> Please refrain from violating the CoC and attacking entities in such manner. 
> It can only be troublesome. 
> 
> I am urging the PDWG chairs to act immediately by sanctioning the sender and 
> deleting this delicate email from the list. 
> 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 15:39, Leo S  <mailto:le...@afcast.com>> a écrit :
> About
>  Cloud Innovation Ltd I want to talk about their business model.
> They
>  got 7 Million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC at a price of $10,000 USD per 
> year, and then leased them to ISPs or end users at a price of ~2 
> USD/year/IPv4 (large block in 2018 if Small block may be more expensive maybe 
> $3 USD) and with an annual increase of 15%
>  fee from the price
> 
> So
>  the cost is $10,000 USD
> Revenue
>  is 7M x 2 = 14 Million
> so
>  it’s 15% profit
> 
> Part
>  of the cost is spent on RIR community activities and seeking support from 
> members, and money will be used to defeat those who oppo

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

I am not convinced that what you said is bad for Cloud Innovation. I can 
neither confirm nor deny the truth of what you said (I don’t have access to the
necessary financial or other data).

You haven’t said anything about them violating AFRINIC policy.
You haven’t said anything about them violating their RSA.
You haven’t said anything about them violating the AFRINIC bylaws.

You’ve made some irrelevant (to this discussion) financial statements and 
questioned AFRINIC’s financial stability.

As such, how, exactly, is this bad for Cloud Innovation?

Owen


> On Jul 25, 2021, at 09:03 , Leo S  wrote:
> 
> Sorry I know I said something bad for Cloud Innovation Ltd, but this is the 
> truth. If they want to sue me, there is no problem, please come to Myanmar.
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:53 PM Meriem Dayday  > wrote:
> Hello, 
> 
> This is a direct violation of the CoC. 
> 
> Disclosing such information and data without the company’s consent is a clear 
> attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the concerned 
> person. 
> 
> Having a business or other relationship with the said company does not give 
> you the right to divulge such details on a public mailing list. That is quite 
> appalling.
> 
> Please refrain from violating the CoC and attacking entities in such manner. 
> It can only be troublesome. 
> 
> I am urging the PDWG chairs to act immediately by sanctioning the sender and 
> deleting this delicate email from the list. 
> 
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 15:39, Leo S  > a écrit :
> About Cloud Innovation Ltd I want to talk about their business model.
> They got 7 Million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC at a price of $10,000 USD per 
> year, and then leased them to ISPs or end users at a price of ~2 
> USD/year/IPv4 (large block in 2018 if Small block may be more expensive maybe 
> $3 USD) and with an annual increase of 15% fee from the price
> 
> So the cost is $10,000 USD
> Revenue is 7M x 2 = 14 Million
> so it’s 15% profit
> 
> Part of the cost is spent on RIR community activities and seeking support 
> from members, and money will be used to defeat those who oppose it. 
> Are there any people in the world who don't love money? Those who accept 
> their money will support them in the community. and questioned any action of 
> discussion that would be detrimental to them.
> 
> Of course, this is Lu Heng.
> He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few years 
> later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart and knows 
> who should pay the money to.
> 
> 
> To rent an IP address from Cloud Innovation Ltd, you do not need to use their 
> network services and circuits. Exactly they don't provide network service. 
> and I think 90% of IP addresses are used in North America and Asia
> 
> 
> I don't know much about AFRINIC's policy. But in ARIN you must have a circuit 
> or network service then you can rent an IP address from the provider.
> 
> The AFRINIC internal audit action may be detrimental to Cloud Innovation Ltd, 
> so they started some network services in South Africa last year as Africa on 
> cloud. but it's a small network. I think the revenue from these services may 
> account for less than 10% of their revenue. so 90% of their revenue still 
> from IPv4 address leasing business
> 
> It can be seen from their income that they have enough money to support the 
> lawsuit against AFRINIC. And spend money in the community to fight for their 
> address not to be revoked.
> very sad AFRINIC is too poor 
> 
> By the way, I was also their customer before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

Really? Who, exactly, would you accuse of such a thing?

Owen

> On Jul 25, 2021, at 08:39 , DANIEL NANGHAKA  wrote:
> 
> Some community members want to kill AFRINIC. 
> These members do not have passion for AFRICA as a region and are against 
> AFRICA internet and technology development.
> 
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021, 6:33 PM Erick Joshua Lagon  > wrote:
> To all,
> 
> This is clearly a personal attack and defamation which holds no relevance to 
> the real issue at hand. I encourage the Board to take down this post because 
> we cannot achieve anything by posting ad hominem arguments. We should be 
> addressing issues for the sake of the community and not attack anyone else 
> here. 
> 
> Regards,
> Erick
> 
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 10:39 PM Leo S  > wrote:
> About Cloud Innovation Ltd I want to talk about their business model.
> They got 7 Million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC at a price of $10,000 USD per 
> year, and then leased them to ISPs or end users at a price of ~2 
> USD/year/IPv4 (large block in 2018 if Small block may be more expensive maybe 
> $3 USD) and with an annual increase of 15% fee from the price
> 
> So the cost is $10,000 USD
> Revenue is 7M x 2 = 14 Million
> so it’s 15% profit
> 
> Part of the cost is spent on RIR community activities and seeking support 
> from members, and money will be used to defeat those who oppose it. 
> Are there any people in the world who don't love money? Those who accept 
> their money will support them in the community. and questioned any action of 
> discussion that would be detrimental to them.
> 
> Of course, this is Lu Heng.
> He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few years 
> later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart and knows 
> who should pay the money to.
> 
> 
> To rent an IP address from Cloud Innovation Ltd, you do not need to use their 
> network services and circuits. Exactly they don't provide network service. 
> and I think 90% of IP addresses are used in North America and Asia
> 
> 
> I don't know much about AFRINIC's policy. But in ARIN you must have a circuit 
> or network service then you can rent an IP address from the provider.
> 
> The AFRINIC internal audit action may be detrimental to Cloud Innovation Ltd, 
> so they started some network services in South Africa last year as Africa on 
> cloud. but it's a small network. I think the revenue from these services may 
> account for less than 10% of their revenue. so 90% of their revenue still 
> from IPv4 address leasing business
> 
> It can be seen from their income that they have enough money to support the 
> lawsuit against AFRINIC. And spend money in the community to fight for their 
> address not to be revoked.
> very sad AFRINIC is too poor 
> 
> By the way, I was also their customer before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss]

> On Jul 25, 2021, at 07:32 , Leo S  wrote:
> 
> About Cloud Innovation Ltd I want to talk about their business model.
> They got 7 Million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC at a price of $10,000 USD per 
> year, and then leased them to ISPs or end users at a price of ~2 
> USD/year/IPv4 (large block in 2018 if Small block may be more expensive maybe 
> $3 USD) and with an annual increase of 15% fee from the price
> 
> So the cost is $10,000 USD
> Revenue is 7M x 2 = 14 Million
> so it’s 15% profit
> 
> Part of the cost is spent on RIR community activities and seeking support 
> from members, and money will be used to defeat those who oppose it. 
> Are there any people in the world who don't love money? Those who accept 
> their money will support them in the community. and questioned any action of 
> discussion that would be detrimental to them.
> 
> Of course, this is Lu Heng.
> He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few years 
> later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart and knows 
> who should pay the money to.
> 
> 
> To rent an IP address from Cloud Innovation Ltd, you do not need to use their 
> network services and circuits. Exactly they don't provide network service. 
> and I think 90% of IP addresses are used in North America and Asia
> 
> 
> I don't know much about AFRINIC's policy. But in ARIN you must have a circuit 
> or network service then you can rent an IP address from the provider.

You are wrong about ARIN policy here.

In ARIN, you cannot use addresses leased outside of connectivity services to 
count as utilized in consideration of application for additional space by 
transfer or from ARIN, but there is no policy or violation of the RSA in using 
your existing space in this manner.

> 
> The AFRINIC internal audit action may be detrimental to Cloud Innovation Ltd, 
> so they started some network services in South Africa last year as Africa on 
> cloud. but it's a small network. I think the revenue from these services may 
> account for less than 10% of their revenue. so 90% of their revenue still 
> from IPv4 address leasing business

This is not prohibited within the AFRINIC governing documents, so I’m not sure 
how this is relevant.

> It can be seen from their income that they have enough money to support the 
> lawsuit against AFRINIC. And spend money in the community to fight for their 
> address not to be revoked.
> very sad AFRINIC is too poor 

Apparently, according to the board, AFRINIC has untapped financial resources 
that they are able to utilize, so perhaps they are not so poor as you imagine 
and have some collection of hidden assets. If I were a member, I’d be asking 
detailed questions about why these assets are not reported on their financials 
and how they expect to get away with being opaque when they are a 
not-for-profit that is supposed to be transparent about such things.

> By the way, I was also their customer before

By inference, i would assume this means you didn’t disapprove of their business 
model at the time, at least.

Owen


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Taiwo Oye]

It is good to see AFRINIC doing it job appropriately for once.
It has been a long while!!!

The personal attacks and name calling are totally unnecessary. 
Sorry I just had to add d last icing on the cake. 


> On Jul 26, 2021, at 13:49, AFRINIC Communication  wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> We kindly ask you all to refrain from continuing with this thread as it seems 
> to be mostly geared towards personal attacks.
> 
> Regardless of the motive, AFRINIC may be forced to issue warnings to those 
> who do not comply and choose to ignore this message.
> 
> Also please refer to the email sent this morning on the AFRINIC Code of 
> Conduct: 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-July/004278.html
> 
> Regards
> AFRINIC Communications
> 
> ……
> 
> 
> Chers collègues,
> 
> Nous vous invitons à vous abstenir de poursuivre ce fil de discussion, car il 
> semble être principalement orienté vers des attaques personnelles.
> 
> Quel qu'en soit le motif, l'AFRINIC pourrait être contrainte d'émettre des 
> avertissements à ceux qui ne se conforment pas et choisissent d'ignorer ce 
> message.
> 
> Veuillez également vous référer à l'email que nous avons envoyé ce matin sur 
> le code de conduite de l'AFRINIC : 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-July/004278.html
> 
> Cordialement,
> AFRINIC Communications
> 
> 
>> On 26 Jul 2021, at 15:39, Anthony Ubah  wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Leo S,
>> 
>> You are churning out awesome figures here, unarguably so. However, I wish 
>> you can spare some time to responded to my question on motive.
>> While this is all now glaring, it is important to know if you are here 
>> shedding light, providing heat, or fanning smokes into our eyes? 
>> You seem to be baiting the community with your posts. "This is good news for 
>> ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP address for the end 
>> user."
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Anthony
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:01 AM Leo S  wrote:
>>> These addresses are worth more than 100 million US dollars. If the address 
>>> is revoked. For them, they will face a loss of 90% of their income Forced 
>>> to close business. They will go all out, For Cloud Innovation Ltd, this is 
>>> more than 100 million US dollars in cash. For AFRINIC it's a mere $10,000 
>>> USD. Actions that can be taken in the face of such a large amount of money 
>>> so I think AFRINIC may fail finally or compromise.
>>> 
>>> This is good news for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP 
>>> address for the end user.
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis  
>>> wrote:
 Hello, 
 
 This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo, 
 shades no light to present discussion at hand.
 To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng” 
 guy. 
 This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no 
 question whether this is a personal attack or not. 
 
 Best, 
 Elvis.
 
 > On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette  
 > wrote:
 > 
 > In message 
 > 
 > Wijdane Goubi  wrote:
 > 
 >> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few
 >> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart
 >> and knows who should pay the money to.
 >> 
 >>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged in
 >> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
 > 
 > I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above, 
 > contitutes
 > "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it 
 > was
 > inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
 > the present discussion.
 > 
 > I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this mailing
 > list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps that
 > explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
 > such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and without
 > adequate thought.
 > 
 > I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract that
 > one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already have
 > more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't be
 > looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
 > ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those times
 > when our passions override our reason.
 > 
 > 
 > Regards,
 > rfg
 > 
 > 
 > ___
 > Community-Discuss mailing list
 > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
 
 
 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[AFRINIC Communication]

Dear Colleagues,

We kindly ask you all to refrain from continuing with this thread as it seems 
to be mostly geared towards personal attacks.

Regardless of the motive, AFRINIC may be forced to issue warnings to those who 
do not comply and choose to ignore this message.

Also please refer to the email sent this morning on the AFRINIC Code of 
Conduct: 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-July/004278.html

Regards
AFRINIC Communications

……


Chers collègues,

Nous vous invitons à vous abstenir de poursuivre ce fil de discussion, car il 
semble être principalement orienté vers des attaques personnelles.

Quel qu'en soit le motif, l'AFRINIC pourrait être contrainte d'émettre des 
avertissements à ceux qui ne se conforment pas et choisissent d'ignorer ce 
message.

Veuillez également vous référer à l'email que nous avons envoyé ce matin sur le 
code de conduite de l'AFRINIC : 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-July/004278.html

Cordialement,
AFRINIC Communications


> On 26 Jul 2021, at 15:39, Anthony Ubah  wrote:
> 
> Dear Leo S,
> 
> You are churning out awesome figures here, unarguably so. However, I wish you 
> can spare some time to responded to my question on motive.
> While this is all now glaring, it is important to know if you are here 
> shedding light, providing heat, or fanning smokes into our eyes? 
> You seem to be baiting the community with your posts. "This is good news for 
> ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP address for the end 
> user."
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Anthony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:01 AM Leo S  > wrote:
> These addresses are worth more than 100 million US dollars. If the address is 
> revoked. For them, they will face a loss of 90% of their income Forced to 
> close business. They will go all out, For Cloud Innovation Ltd, this is more 
> than 100 million US dollars in cash. For AFRINIC it's a mere $10,000 USD. 
> Actions that can be taken in the face of such a large amount of money so I 
> think AFRINIC may fail finally or compromise.
> 
> This is good news for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP 
> address for the end user.
> 
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis  > wrote:
> Hello, 
> 
> This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo, 
> shades no light to present discussion at hand.
> To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng” guy. 
> This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no 
> question whether this is a personal attack or not. 
> 
> Best, 
> Elvis.
> 
> > On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette  > > wrote:
> > 
> > In message 
> >  > >
> > Wijdane Goubi mailto:goubi.wijd...@gmail.com>> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few
> >> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart
> >> and knows who should pay the money to.
> >> 
> >>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged in
> >> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
> > 
> > I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above, contitutes
> > "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it was
> > inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
> > the present discussion.
> > 
> > I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this mailing
> > list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps that
> > explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
> > such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and without
> > adequate thought.
> > 
> > I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract that
> > one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already have
> > more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't be
> > looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
> > ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those times
> > when our passions override our reason.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > rfg
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Community-Discuss mailing list
> > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
> > 
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss 
> 
> 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Anthony Ubah]

Dear Leo S,

You are churning out awesome figures here, unarguably so. However, I wish
you can spare some time to responded to my question on motive.
While this is all now glaring, it is important to know if you are here
shedding light, providing heat, or fanning smokes into our eyes?
You seem to be baiting the community with your posts. *"This is good news
for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP address for the
end user."*


*Regards,*

*Anthony*




On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:01 AM Leo S  wrote:

> These addresses are worth more than 100 million US dollars. If the address
> is revoked. For them, they will face a loss of 90% of their income Forced
> to close business. They will go all out, For Cloud Innovation Ltd, this is
> more than 100 million US dollars in cash. For AFRINIC it's a mere $10,000
> USD. Actions that can be taken in the face of such a large amount of money
> so I think AFRINIC may fail finally or compromise.
>
> This is good news for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP
> address for the end user.
>
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo,
>> shades no light to present discussion at hand.
>> To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng”
>> guy.
>> This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no
>> question whether this is a personal attack or not.
>>
>> Best,
>> Elvis.
>>
>> > On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > In message <
>> cakkt+fdleydt7jqvmvsruuh5ouhl4xvvpb1bbikscx5wocg...@mail.gmail.com>
>> > Wijdane Goubi  wrote:
>> >
>> >> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A
>> few
>> >> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is
>> smart
>> >> and knows who should pay the money to.
>> >>
>> >>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged in
>> >> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
>> >
>> > I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above,
>> contitutes
>> > "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it
>> was
>> > inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
>> > the present discussion.
>> >
>> > I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this mailing
>> > list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps
>> that
>> > explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
>> > such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and without
>> > adequate thought.
>> >
>> > I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract that
>> > one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already have
>> > more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't
>> be
>> > looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
>> > ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those
>> times
>> > when our passions override our reason.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > rfg
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Community-Discuss mailing list
>> > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Noah]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, 19:32 Leo S,  wrote:

>
> The current situation poses risks to users who rent their IP addresses. I
> think the problem itself is AFRINIC's own problem. Who allocated 7 million
> addresses to them? As far as I know, even providers like OVH do not have 7
> million IP addresses. And a paper company can get 7 million IP addresses.
>


This part of the world, we call them brief case companies.

So while checking some statistics with a good friend over the weekend, we
just noted that actually Cloud Innovation has more IPv4 addresses than East
African countries of Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and I won't even bother
posting for Rwanda, Burundi and South Sudan because its sad.

If anyone cares, download the delegated file and run below command.

*Kenya as a country with all its AFRINIC resource members has a total of
6099456 IPv4 addresses. **That is about 6 Million only.*

$ awk -F '|' '$2=="*KE*" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}'
delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723
*6099456*

*Tanzania as a country with all its AFRINIC resource members has a total
of 1037568 IPv4 addresses. **That is about 1 Million only.*

$ awk -F '|' '$2=="TZ" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}'
delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723
*1037568*

*Uganda as a country with all its AFRINIC resource members has a total
of 1410048 IPv4 addresses. That is 1.4 Million only.*

$ awk -F '|' '$2=="UG" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}'
delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723
*1410048*

We also looked at the total number of IPv4 addresses allocated to Nigeria,
one of the biggest AFRICAN economies and sadly they sit at a total of about
3Million IPv4 addresses.

$ awk -F '|' '$2=="NG" && $3=="ipv4" {sum+=$5} END {print sum}'
delegated-afrinic-extended-20210723
*3126784*

I mean, Leo my brother, I totally resonate with your point of view on how
the heck did bloody Cloud Innovation Ltd end up with 6 Million IPv4
addresses without any reasonable network on this continent.

Owen always claims that it is what it is, but accountability can not be
avoided and anyone who dodges attempts to be held accountable is a bad
actor.

*Waiting to be sued.*
Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Leo S]

These addresses are worth more than 100 million US dollars. If the address
is revoked. For them, they will face a loss of 90% of their income Forced
to close business. They will go all out, For Cloud Innovation Ltd, this is
more than 100 million US dollars in cash. For AFRINIC it's a mere $10,000
USD. Actions that can be taken in the face of such a large amount of money
so I think AFRINIC may fail finally or compromise.

This is good news for ISPs who rent IP from them, No need to change the IP
address for the end user.

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:30 AM Ibeanusi Elvis 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo,
> shades no light to present discussion at hand.
> To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng”
> guy.
> This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no
> question whether this is a personal attack or not.
>
> Best,
> Elvis.
>
> > On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette 
> wrote:
> >
> > In message <
> cakkt+fdleydt7jqvmvsruuh5ouhl4xvvpb1bbikscx5wocg...@mail.gmail.com>
> > Wijdane Goubi  wrote:
> >
> >> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few
> >> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart
> >> and knows who should pay the money to.
> >>
> >>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged in
> >> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
> >
> > I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above,
> contitutes
> > "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it
> was
> > inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
> > the present discussion.
> >
> > I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this mailing
> > list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps that
> > explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
> > such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and without
> > adequate thought.
> >
> > I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract that
> > one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already have
> > more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't be
> > looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
> > ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those times
> > when our passions override our reason.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > rfg
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Community-Discuss mailing list
> > Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ibeanusi Elvis]

Hello, 

This is information of whatever anyone might choose to call it from Leo, shades 
no light to present discussion at hand.
To me, this is a clear defamation and personal attack to this "Lu Heng” guy. 
This is a clear violation of the Code of Conduct and there should be no 
question whether this is a personal attack or not. 

Best, 
Elvis.

> On Jul 26, 2021, at 11:04, Ronald F. Guilmette  wrote:
> 
> In message 
> 
> Wijdane Goubi  wrote:
> 
>> *He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few
>> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart
>> and knows who should pay the money to.
>> 
>>> Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged in
>> some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?
> 
> I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above, contitutes
> "casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it was
> inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
> the present discussion.
> 
> I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this mailing
> list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps that
> explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
> such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and without
> adequate thought.
> 
> I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract that
> one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already have
> more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't be
> looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
> ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those times
> when our passions override our reason.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> rfg
> 
> 
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Wijdane Goubi  wrote:

>*He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few
>years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart
>and knows who should pay the money to.
>
>>Leo's statement here hints that this guy called Lu Heng has engaged in
>some sort of bribing. How is this not personal attack defamation?

I am forced to agree that Leo's second sentence, as quoted above, contitutes
"casting aspersions" and in the absence of hard supporting evidence it was
inappropriate, uncalled for, and contributed only heat and no light to
the present discussion.

I made the exact same sort of mistake myself, right here on this mailing
list, back in 2016, and later publicly apologized for that.  Perhaps that
explains why I am less inclined that others to make a huge issue out of
such utterances when they are made in the heat of the moment and without
adequate thought.

I think that it should be sufficient to politely ask Leo to retract that
one sentence, to apologize, and then let it go at that.  We already have
more than enough wars to fight, tribal and otherwise, and we shouldn't be
looking for reasons to start up new ones just based on this or that
ill-considered statement that may be made by any of us during those times
when our passions override our reason.


Regards,
rfg


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Anthony Ubah]

Hi Leo S,

Is this a case of 'Naming and Shaming', a 'Public outcry' or an
'Intervention'? I am very much confused right now.

Although this mailinglist is a general community fora, this still doesn't
sound like the proper channel for this discuss.

Also, I still can't place my hand on the motive behind this thread. The
timing is odd as well...
You have highlighted details and Data of Cloud innovation, and also confess
to being a beneficiary of this 'loot'(if I may).

Is this post about AFRINIC, Internet, Cloud Innovation, or personal issues
with the person, Lu Heng.

At what point did you put on the moral hat, or have you been edged off the
table you once dined in, and now seeking retribution? 樂

IMO, your email was clearly thought-out and drafted. If your concerns are
as stated above, for results, rather than initiating fruitless discuss in
the community with this, seek proper channels to funnel your concerns and
issues. If litigation is what you seek, put together your evidence and
witnesses, and file a court case. This community will back you.


Kind regards,

Anthony




On Sun, Jul 25, 2021, 10:40 AM Leo S  wrote:

> About Cloud Innovation Ltd I want to talk about their business model.
>
> They got 7 Million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC at a price of $10,000 USD
> per year, and then leased them to ISPs or end users at a price of ~2
> USD/year/IPv4 (large block in 2018 if Small block may be more expensive
> maybe $3 USD) and with an annual increase of 15% fee from the price
>
> So the cost is $10,000 USD
>
> Revenue is 7M x 2 = 14 Million
>
> so it’s 15% profit
>
> Part of the cost is spent on RIR community activities and seeking support
> from members, and money will be used to defeat those who oppose it.
>
> Are there any people in the world who don't love money? Those who accept
> their money will support them in the community. and questioned any action
> of discussion that would be detrimental to them.
>
> Of course, this is Lu Heng.
>
> He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few
> years later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart
> and knows who should pay the money to.
>
>
> To rent an IP address from Cloud Innovation Ltd, you do not need to use
> their network services and circuits. Exactly they don't provide network
> service. and I think 90% of IP addresses are used in North America and Asia
>
>
> I don't know much about AFRINIC's policy. But in ARIN you must have a
> circuit or network service then you can rent an IP address from the
> provider.
>
> The AFRINIC internal audit action may be detrimental to Cloud Innovation
> Ltd, so they started some network services in South Africa last year as
> Africa on cloud. but it's a small network. I think the revenue from these
> services may account for less than 10% of their revenue. so 90% of their
> revenue still from IPv4 address leasing business
>
> It can be seen from their income that they have enough money to support
> the lawsuit against AFRINIC. And spend money in the community to fight for
> their address not to be revoked.
>
> very sad AFRINIC is too poor
>
> By the way, I was also their customer before
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Leo S  wrote:

>Who allocated 7 million addresses to them?

I dislike imprecision.

The actual and exact number is 6,291,456 IPv4 addresses, i.e. two /11s
and two /12s, as follows:

45.192.0.0/12
154.80.0.0/12
154.192.0.0/11
156.224.0.0/11


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Leo S  wrote:

>Sorry I know I said something bad for Cloud Innovation Ltd, but this is the
>truth. If they want to sue me, there is no problem, please come to Myanmar.

+1

It is not "defamation" against the Catholic Chruch to say that the earth
revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around.

That fact, and the facts that were posted about Cloud Innovation's use
and deployment of its assigned number resources are *not* secret or
private business information.  These things may be independently observed
and verified by anyone who simply raises his eyes from the Bible long
enough to look through the telescope.

The Internet is *not* a private endeavor, and there exists an abundance
of public information that allows pretty much anyone to determine who is
routing what and to where.


Regards,
rfg


P.S.  I don't think that even Lu Heng himself has ever made any attempt to
deny the publicly available facts of how his assigned IPv4 space has been
deployed.  Even he himself has not argued and will not argue that all of his
assigned IP space, or even a majority thereof, is being routed to Africa.
Rather, his argument is just that he is allowed, under all relevant rules
and contracts, to do whatever he likes with his already-assigned IP space.
And it is now up to the courts to determine if he is right or wrong about
that, in a formal and legal sense.

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message 
Meriem Dayday  wrote:

>This is a direct violation of the CoC.

No, actually, it isn't.

The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of
it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is effectively
public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any number of
public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net, etc.)

If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an
affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the
telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what
is next?  Book burning?

>Disclosing such information and data without the company's consent is a
>clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the
>concerned person.

OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different obvious
logical problems.

First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what various
companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,
without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the nature
of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private intranet,
then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last
detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the minute any
company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it
*voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange for being
a part of, and a participant on this great communications experiment we 
call the Internet.

I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud Innovation.
And yet even well before today I already determined for myself that well
more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4
address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not a state
secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100% public
sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same information.

Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its
assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific
RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question,
and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the
courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine.  But the
mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned
resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the available
public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to portray
them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship.

The second logical problem with the statement above is contained in the
part that says "... attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences
on the concerned person."

Exactly so!  If the guy who posted the material you are reacting to was
willing to take the legal risk to post that material, IN SPITE OF the
possibility that he could, at least in theory, be sued for defamation,
then why are YOU worried about it?  Why should AFRINIC be worried about
it?  Obviously, this (theoretical) possibility of a defemation lawsuit
is only a problem for the guy who posted the (allegedly) defamatory
text, and he obviiously was willing to take the risk in order to express
his opinion, SO WHAT IS THAT TO YOU?

Here again, shouting down in the original poster in this manner appears
to me to be just another a heavy-handed attempt at pointless censorship.

I hope that we here can all have open and frank discusions of all of the
issues now of concern to AFRINIC without these kinds of attempts to
muzzle dissenting viewpoints based on perfectly silly arguments.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Lamiaa Chnayti]

Hey Miriam,

You’re absolutely right ! I don’t speak on behalf of an entire community
and neither does Leo or anyone else in this discussion. I recommend you
re-read my comment before speculating thoughts that I have never
expressed.. And since we’re at it, let me add that there is a huge
difference between welcoming opinions from individuals and telling them
they can *represent Afrinic* in an ongoing court case.

But anyways, now that we got that cleared out, what corruption are you
referring to exactly? Are you making an ad hominem attack to someone
specifically?

Lamiaa



On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 at 19:09, Mirriam  wrote:

> Hi Lamiia,
>
> If Leo does not represent Afrinic community, what makes you think that you
> do?
>
> We welcome internet community opinion from people from Myanmar like Leo
> who are shading light to the corruption.
>
>
> Mirriam.
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
>
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 8:35 PM, Lamiaa Chnayti
>  wrote:
> Putting away whether Leo is resourceful or not, Leo’s opinion does not
> represent the AFRINIC community. The term “on behalf of” is bewildering…
>
> Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 18:04, Mirriam via Community-Discuss <
> community-discuss@afrinic.net> a écrit :
>
> Hi Leo,
>
> You are a very resourceful human and you could be a remote witness on
> behalf of Afrinic in this matter with the ongoing court cases.
>
> Mirriam
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
> 
>
> On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:04 PM, Leo S
>  wrote:
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
> --
> Lamiaa CHNAYTI
>
>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Mirriam via Community-Discuss]

Hi Lamiia,
If Leo does not represent Afrinic community, what makes you think that you do?
We welcome internet community opinion from people from Myanmar like Leo who are 
shading light to the corruption.

Mirriam.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 8:35 PM, Lamiaa Chnayti 
wrote:   Putting away whether Leo is resourceful or not, Leo’s opinion does not 
represent the AFRINIC community. The term “on behalf of” is bewildering…

Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 18:04, Mirriam via Community-Discuss 
 a écrit :

Hi Leo,
You are a very resourceful human and you could be a remote witness on behalf of 
Afrinic in this matter with the ongoing court cases.
Mirriam
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android 
 
  On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:04 PM, Leo S wrote:   
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
  
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

-- 
Lamiaa CHNAYTI
  
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss