Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Randy Bush]

again, do not be distracted by the rather obvious DoS on this list.  our
administrative infra is being attacked.  defend it by putting your money
where your mouth is.

https://www.tespok.co.ke/?page_id=14001

i did and will again.

randy

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Noah]

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, 22:46 Owen DeLong via NANOG,  wrote:

>
>
> > On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:48 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >
> >> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?
> >>
> >> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July,
> including
> >> the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem
> in the first
> >> place). I don’t know who the other two were.
> >>
> >> Everyone else got paid for July.
> >>
> >> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal
> expenses
> >> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with
> salaries
> >> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler
> heads at
> >> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before
> they run
> >> out of money from that reprieve.
> >
> > This is rich!
> >
> > Of course, one should expect people to be mentally settled and do good
> work when they have no security or clarity about whether they will get paid
> at the end of each month.
> >
> > These aren't robots, mate. People have real thoughts and real feelings.
> >
> > Stress is not intangible... it releases cortisol, which delivers a
> number of physiological side effects that work against good health.
> Financial insecurity is just about the worst stress anyone has to deal with.
> >
> > None of us would sleep well if we knew that our source of income is not
> guaranteed, despite what some may say about "As such, there shouldn't be
> any problems with salaries..."
> >
> > Mark.
>
> Well… I don’t see you calling out the stress and cortisol actions for the
> various staff and customers of Cloud Innovation or Larus in your postings
> when AFRINIC first issued an existential threat to their business based on
> made-up policies that don’t actually exist.
>


M see below.


> As such, I’d argue that AFRINIC attacked a much larger population first.


You are not being honest Owen.

See below an extract from AFRNIC CEO message on the termination of CIL.

>



   -

In order not to disrupt Internet connectivity of the relevant users
   especially in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, all affected
   users will exceptionally be granted a grace period of 90 days to consider
   other available options in their best interests. Consequently, the actual
   reclamation of the relevant number resources will occur following the
   expiry of the grace period.


Eddy Kayihura
Chief Executive Officer,
African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC)




So how did AFRINIC attack the so called larger population you are claiming
about?

All Cloud Innovation Ltd clients had been given 90 days to work things out
with AFRINIC.

Cheers,
Noah

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 13:30 , Tom Beecher  wrote:
> 
>  They attacked a member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t 
> actually exist.
> 
> You continually refer to AFRINIC's actions as an 'attack'. However, that 
> would seem to be an open question of law , which AFRINIC cannot litigate 
> because they're have no access to their money. 

Apparently this isn’t an issue for them as they are, in fact, litigating it and 
have managed to hire the most expensive law firm in Mauritius to do so.

Until they went looking for other excuses, their attack was based primarily on 
accusations that out of region use was not permitted.

All of the resources in question were issued prior to activation of the Soft 
Landing (5.4) policy, so 5.4.6.2 does not apply.

If you can find some other place in the CPM that prohibits such, then by all 
means, let me know. If you cannot, then I think the openness of that question 
is rather limited.

Owen

> 
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:40 PM Owen DeLong  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:21 , Tom Beecher > > wrote:
>> 
>> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses
>> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with 
>> salaries
>> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads 
>> at
>> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they 
>> run
>> out of money from that reprieve.
>> 
>> It's good that people are still being paid.
>> 
>> That being said, while some may have the opinion that AFRINIC's actions have 
>> been 'objectionable' , others have the opinion that their actions were 
>> justified and proper. Does it not concern you at all that AFRINIC may be 
>> forced into a 'settlement' because they cannot access their funds due to a 
>> very dubious claim of damages? 
> 
> I don’t think AFRINIC is being forced into anything. They attacked a member 
> on the basis of violations of rules that don’t actually exist. The company 
> retaliated by obtaining an injunction. AFRINIC managed to get the injunction 
> temporarily lifted on a technicality (largely of AFRINIC’s making) and took 
> an opportunity to make an existential attack on the member during that brief 
> window of opportunity. AFRINIC then deliberately dragged their feet on 
> complying with a court order restoring the injunction.
> 
> As such, no, I’m really not concerned about AFRINIC’s ability to avoid 
> settling and I utterly reject the idea that the claim of damages is at all 
> dubious.
> 
>> There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through 
>> already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm 
>> tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts.
> 
> Agreed. Please review the recent conduct of the AFRINIC board in detail in 
> this context.
> 
> Owen
> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:59 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG > > wrote:
>> >> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
>> >> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
>> >> work cut out for them.
>> > 
>> > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and
>> > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying.
>> 
>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?
>> 
>> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, 
>> including
>> the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in 
>> the first
>> place). I don’t know who the other two were.
>> 
>> Everyone else got paid for July.
>> 
>> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses
>> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with 
>> salaries
>> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads 
>> at
>> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they 
>> run
>> out of money from that reprieve.
>> 
>> > I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree
>> > with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the
>> > arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful
>> > to close out loopholes in the system.
>> 
>> Only if they are ever able to be made public, which is a little iffy given 
>> the Mauritian
>> court system. It may well be that only the final ruling is able to be made 
>> public.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
> 

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher]

>
>  They attacked a member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t
> actually exist.
>

You continually refer to AFRINIC's actions as an 'attack'. However, that
would seem to be an open question of law , which AFRINIC cannot litigate
because they're have no access to their money.

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:40 PM Owen DeLong  wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:21 , Tom Beecher  wrote:
>
> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal
>> expenses
>> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with
>> salaries
>> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler
>> heads at
>> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before
>> they run
>> out of money from that reprieve.
>>
>
> It's good that people are still being paid.
>
> That being said, while some may have the opinion that AFRINIC's actions
> have been 'objectionable' , others have the opinion that their actions were
> justified and proper. Does it not concern you at all that AFRINIC may be
> forced into a 'settlement' because they cannot access their funds due to a
> very dubious claim of damages?
>
>
> I don’t think AFRINIC is being forced into anything. They attacked a
> member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t actually exist. The
> company retaliated by obtaining an injunction. AFRINIC managed to get the
> injunction temporarily lifted on a technicality (largely of AFRINIC’s
> making) and took an opportunity to make an existential attack on the member
> during that brief window of opportunity. AFRINIC then deliberately dragged
> their feet on complying with a court order restoring the injunction.
>
> As such, no, I’m really not concerned about AFRINIC’s ability to avoid
> settling and I utterly reject the idea that the claim of damages is at all
> dubious.
>
> There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through
> already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm
> tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts.
>
>
> Agreed. Please review the recent conduct of the AFRINIC board in detail in
> this context.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:59 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
> wrote:
>
>> >> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
>> >> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
>> >> work cut out for them.
>> >
>> > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and
>> > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying.
>>
>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?
>>
>> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July,
>> including
>> the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in
>> the first
>> place). I don’t know who the other two were.
>>
>> Everyone else got paid for July.
>>
>> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal
>> expenses
>> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with
>> salaries
>> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler
>> heads at
>> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before
>> they run
>> out of money from that reprieve.
>>
>> > I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree
>> > with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the
>> > arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful
>> > to close out loopholes in the system.
>>
>> Only if they are ever able to be made public, which is a little iffy
>> given the Mauritian
>> court system. It may well be that only the final ruling is able to be
>> made public.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:48 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?
>> 
>> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, 
>> including
>> the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in 
>> the first
>> place). I don’t know who the other two were.
>> 
>> Everyone else got paid for July.
>> 
>> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses
>> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with 
>> salaries
>> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads 
>> at
>> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they 
>> run
>> out of money from that reprieve.
> 
> This is rich!
> 
> Of course, one should expect people to be mentally settled and do good work 
> when they have no security or clarity about whether they will get paid at the 
> end of each month.
> 
> These aren't robots, mate. People have real thoughts and real feelings.
> 
> Stress is not intangible... it releases cortisol, which delivers a number of 
> physiological side effects that work against good health. Financial 
> insecurity is just about the worst stress anyone has to deal with.
> 
> None of us would sleep well if we knew that our source of income is not 
> guaranteed, despite what some may say about "As such, there shouldn't be any 
> problems with salaries..."
> 
> Mark.

Well… I don’t see you calling out the stress and cortisol actions for the 
various staff and customers of Cloud Innovation or Larus in your postings when 
AFRINIC first issued an existential threat to their business based on made-up 
policies that don’t actually exist.

As such, I’d argue that AFRINIC attacked a much larger population first. The 
fact that (at least so far), AFRINIC’s attacks have been less successful than 
Cloud Innovation’s counter-attacks doesn’t change the fact that if you want to 
call it out that way, there’s a greater human cost on the other side.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:21 , Tom Beecher  wrote:
> 
> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses
> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with 
> salaries
> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads 
> at
> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they 
> run
> out of money from that reprieve.
> 
> It's good that people are still being paid.
> 
> That being said, while some may have the opinion that AFRINIC's actions have 
> been 'objectionable' , others have the opinion that their actions were 
> justified and proper. Does it not concern you at all that AFRINIC may be 
> forced into a 'settlement' because they cannot access their funds due to a 
> very dubious claim of damages? 

I don’t think AFRINIC is being forced into anything. They attacked a member on 
the basis of violations of rules that don’t actually exist. The company 
retaliated by obtaining an injunction. AFRINIC managed to get the injunction 
temporarily lifted on a technicality (largely of AFRINIC’s making) and took an 
opportunity to make an existential attack on the member during that brief 
window of opportunity. AFRINIC then deliberately dragged their feet on 
complying with a court order restoring the injunction.

As such, no, I’m really not concerned about AFRINIC’s ability to avoid settling 
and I utterly reject the idea that the claim of damages is at all dubious.

> There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through 
> already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm 
> tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts.

Agreed. Please review the recent conduct of the AFRINIC board in detail in this 
context.

Owen

> 
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:59 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
> >> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
> >> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
> >> work cut out for them.
> > 
> > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and
> > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying.
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?
> 
> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, 
> including
> the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in the 
> first
> place). I don’t know who the other two were.
> 
> Everyone else got paid for July.
> 
> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses
> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with 
> salaries
> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads 
> at
> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they 
> run
> out of money from that reprieve.
> 
> > I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree
> > with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the
> > arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful
> > to close out loopholes in the system.
> 
> Only if they are ever able to be made public, which is a little iffy given 
> the Mauritian
> court system. It may well be that only the final ruling is able to be made 
> public.
> 
> Owen
> 

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Valerie Wittkop]

REMINDER from the admins… 

Please ensure your posts are topical, do not go against the Usage Guidelines 
, and 
provide for an  exchange of technical information and the discussion of 
specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service 
providers.

The Mailing List is not an appropriate platform to resolve personal issues, 
engage in disputes, or file complaints.

Also, please ask yourself these three questions before posting -
Does my email have operational/technical content?
Would I be interested in reading this email?
Would 12,864 other Internet engineers want to read this?

And in case you missed our first message among the many messages. In this 
thread: 

This thread has had a few twists and turns, as well as ups and downs. So I am 
taking a moment on behalf of the admins to remind everyone here of the Usage 
Guidelines 
.

First and foremost - please report to adm...@nanog.org 
 a concern about violation of the guidelines. Using 
the list to argue about violations is not appropriate. 

Secondly - there have been entirely too many messages in this thread that are 
in violation of guideline number 6, specifically with comments that are 
defamatory, abusive, or lack respect for other participants. 

Finally - the NANOG mail list is not the place to conduct a trial. (See 
guidelines number 8.)

Should you have any questions/concerns about this reminder, please send a 
message to adm...@nanog.org  

Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org
NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Brielle]

On Sep 1, 2021, at 5:56 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9/1/21 13:21, Tom Beecher wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through 
>> already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm 
>> tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts.
> 
> One would think...
> 
> There are many African-based and African-led organizations that would go 
> toe-to-toe with AFRINIC over any number of legal disagreements. But there is 
> not a single African-based and African-led organization that would ever cut 
> off AFRINIC's supply just for their own benefit, or to prove a point. None.
> 
> I can't even say that it would impose less stress on us, Africans, if it was 
> one of our own shooting ourselves in the foot in this way, because we do not 
> have a culture of going against each other in the way that we are currently 
> witnessing. It's not in our DNA.
> 
> That a non-African entity and its posse are stumping their feet on the 
> African continent in this way, and making poor people even poorer, is as 
> diseased as it is rotten.

As an American, holding legacy ARIN resources, there are times where I disagree 
with how they do things or how they’ve operated in the past….

However, I’d never be that daft to file a lawsuit against them with the obvious 
intention of trying to financially ruin/bankrupt them to get what I want, even 
if I was 100% within the legal right.

I’d be internet enemy #1.  I’d expect to be the target of nasty shit directed 
my way.  I’d expect my netblocks to be globally black holed to all hell.  I’d 
deserve every bit of it.

People have long memories for things like this.  

I still harbor resentment towards NetSol over their hijacking of all 
non-existing domains to their site in the 2000s…

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/1/21 13:21, Tom Beecher wrote:



There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work 
through already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing 
strongarm tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated 
in courts.


One would think...

There are many African-based and African-led organizations that would go 
toe-to-toe with AFRINIC over any number of legal disagreements. But 
there is not a single African-based and African-led organization that 
would ever cut off AFRINIC's supply just for their own benefit, or to 
prove a point. None.


I can't even say that it would impose less stress on us, Africans, if it 
was one of our own shooting ourselves in the foot in this way, because 
we do not have a culture of going against each other in the way that we 
are currently witnessing. It's not in our DNA.


That a non-African entity and its posse are stumping their feet on the 
African continent in this way, and making poor people even poorer, is as 
diseased as it is rotten.


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?

There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, 
including
the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in the 
first
place). I don’t know who the other two were.

Everyone else got paid for July.

AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses
for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with salaries
or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads at
AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they run
out of money from that reprieve.


This is rich!

Of course, one should expect people to be mentally settled and do good 
work when they have no security or clarity about whether they will get 
paid at the end of each month.


These aren't robots, mate. People have real thoughts and real feelings.

Stress is not intangible... it releases cortisol, which delivers a 
number of physiological side effects that work against good health. 
Financial insecurity is just about the worst stress anyone has to deal with.


None of us would sleep well if we knew that our source of income is not 
guaranteed, despite what some may say about "As such, there shouldn't be 
any problems with salaries..."


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 22:55, Sabri Berisha wrote:



I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
work cut out for them.


The human cost has nothing to do with the wording of allocation 
language. That was just pure posturing.


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 22:37, Rubens Kuhl wrote:


I can try helping with that: in underserved regions it's not unusual
for network services for that population to be physically hosted out
of the region. For instance, if you have a hosting service that only
accepts South African rands and your language options are Afrikaans
and Zulu, you can credibly argue to AfriNIC that you are targeting its
service region and are eligible for AfriNIC number resources.

But you would need to be upfront with that, including mentioning that
your upstreams are not from Africa and your installations won't be in
Africa.
Otherwise you applied for number resources under false pretenses, and
will bear the risk of such.


I believe CI had a small footprint in South Africa in some rack. 
Certainly nothing that would bother a /29.


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 22:28, Sabri Berisha wrote:



It's easy to argue that CI is in full compliance with that since their
assignment supports connectivity between users in Africa and their clients'
services. In that case, only IP space used outside of Africa not advertised
to the internet would be in violation.


AFRINIC's intention with that language is that those IP addresses need 
to be assigned for use by eyeballs and operations in Africa. Of course, 
the Internet is a two-way street, but the IP addresses from which the 
traffic is sourced, in this case, need to be used inside the continent 
of Africa.


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher]

>
> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal
> expenses
> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with
> salaries
> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler
> heads at
> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before
> they run
> out of money from that reprieve.
>

It's good that people are still being paid.

That being said, while some may have the opinion that AFRINIC's actions
have been 'objectionable' , others have the opinion that their actions were
justified and proper. Does it not concern you at all that AFRINIC may be
forced into a 'settlement' because they cannot access their funds due to a
very dubious claim of damages?

There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through
already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm
tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts.

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:59 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
wrote:

> >> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
> >> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
> >> work cut out for them.
> >
> > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and
> > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying.
>
> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?
>
> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July,
> including
> the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in
> the first
> place). I don’t know who the other two were.
>
> Everyone else got paid for July.
>
> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal
> expenses
> for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with
> salaries
> or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler
> heads at
> AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before
> they run
> out of money from that reprieve.
>
> > I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree
> > with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the
> > arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful
> > to close out loopholes in the system.
>
> Only if they are ever able to be made public, which is a little iffy given
> the Mauritian
> court system. It may well be that only the final ruling is able to be made
> public.
>
> Owen
>
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

>> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
>> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
>> work cut out for them.
> 
> That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and
> contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?

There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, 
including
the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in the 
first
place). I don’t know who the other two were.

Everyone else got paid for July.

AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses
for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with salaries
or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads at
AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they run
out of money from that reprieve.

> I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree
> with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the
> arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful
> to close out loopholes in the system.

Only if they are ever able to be made public, which is a little iffy given the 
Mauritian
court system. It may well be that only the final ruling is able to be made 
public.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 13:53 , Jon Lewis  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, Sabri Berisha wrote:
> 
>> - On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> [ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ]
>> 
>>> "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use
>>> outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to the
>>> AFRINIC region."
>> 
>>> AfriNIC's policy is not at all vague on the matter that their resources
>>> are to be used in or to support connectivity in the AFRINIC region.
>> 
>> In all fairness, that is as ambiguous as it can be. What constitutes "support
>> of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region"?
>> 
>> It's easy to argue that CI is in full compliance with that since their
>> assignment supports connectivity between users in Africa and their clients'
>> services. In that case, only IP space used outside of Africa not advertised
>> to the internet would be in violation.
> 
> I think any reasonable person would argue "in support of connectivity back to 
> the AFRINIC region." would cover things like providing IP addressing for a 
> network that extends into the AfriNIC region, and not to leasing IPs to 
> random orgs outside the AfriNIC region for use on networks that don't extend 
> into the AfriNIC region.
> 
> Regardless, I gather from other messages, the issue is CI claims this is a 
> misapplication of policy (or AfriNIC f'd up writing the CPM) and CI claims 
> 5.4.6.2 doesn't apply because their allocations pre-date AfriNIC being down 
> to their final /8.
> 
> It sure looks to me like this was a major oversight, as 5.4.6.2 doesn't 
> appear to have anything to do with soft landing, but is under the soft 
> landing section of the CPM (which says "This section describes how AFRINIC 
> shall assign...resources during the "Exhaustion Phase""

I was present for many of the debates over the soft landing policy. 5.4.6.2 is 
language that came from that policy proposal and was quite clearly and 
deliberately intended to be part of that policy and be applied once exhaustion 
phase 1 was activated. It is not an oversight and it is not an error that it is 
part of that policy.

One might argue that the lack of a more general policy regarding out of region 
use was an oversight once upon a time, but an effort was made by one community 
member to get such a policy adopted. There was much vocal opposition and the 
policy did not achieve consensus in the community. It was ultimately withdrawn 
by the author per the AFRINIC PDP.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

> > But you would need to be upfront with that, including mentioning that
> > your upstreams are not from Africa and your installations won't be in
> > Africa.
> > Otherwise you applied for number resources under false pretenses, and
> > will bear the risk of such.
>
> Again, fair enough. And what happens if the same hosting company is
> struggling and now decides to offer its services to other regions
> as well? Are they now out of compliance and at risk to have their
> precious number resources revoked?

If they will provide services to both the original region and
different regions, they should apply to number resources from a region
that does not have such restrictions, like the region where they
physically host servers, and divide their provisioning between
original regions and alternate regions.

> My point is not that you are wrong (your interpretation of the clause
> is very reasonable). My point is that different people have a different
> understanding of the plain language of that clause. And that is assuming
> that it applies, as I believe that CI is arguing that it does not.

And they might have a point there, but I don't see them living up to
whatever they wrote in their application for number resources.


> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
> work cut out for them.

That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and
contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying.

I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree
with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the
arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful
to close out loopholes in the system.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Aug 31, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Rubens,

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:28 PM Sabri Berisha  wrote:
>> In all fairness, that is as ambiguous as it can be. What constitutes "support
>> of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region"?
> 
> I can try helping with that: in underserved regions it's not unusual
> for network services for that population to be physically hosted out
> of the region. For instance, if you have a hosting service that only
> accepts South African rands and your language options are Afrikaans
> and Zulu, you can credibly argue to AfriNIC that you are targeting its
> service region and are eligible for AfriNIC number resources.

That is one (fair) interpretation. Also one that I didn't think of. 
 
> But you would need to be upfront with that, including mentioning that
> your upstreams are not from Africa and your installations won't be in
> Africa.
> Otherwise you applied for number resources under false pretenses, and
> will bear the risk of such.

Again, fair enough. And what happens if the same hosting company is
struggling and now decides to offer its services to other regions
as well? Are they now out of compliance and at risk to have their
precious number resources revoked?

My point is not that you are wrong (your interpretation of the clause
is very reasonable). My point is that different people have a different
understanding of the plain language of that clause. And that is assuming
that it applies, as I believe that CI is arguing that it does not.

When I did my MBA program, I had to take accounting classes. One of the
key takeaways for me was the explanation for the need of accounting rules.

Imagine two accountants discussing the value of the Golden Gate Bridge.
The first accountant will estimate it at $120 million, while the second
accountant will say $121 million. Both are fairly reasonable, and very
close to each other. However, for accounting purposes, only one value
can be used. Which one should be used?

A similar issue is, from what I can see, going on here. How does one
interpret the AfriNIC region clause? You come across as a very reasonable
person, and I like to think that I am, too. Yet we have a different
initial interpretation of the rules.

I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
work cut out for them.

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Jon Lewis]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, Sabri Berisha wrote:


- On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:

Hi,

[ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ]


"5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use
outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to the
AFRINIC region."



AfriNIC's policy is not at all vague on the matter that their resources
are to be used in or to support connectivity in the AFRINIC region.


In all fairness, that is as ambiguous as it can be. What constitutes "support
of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region"?

It's easy to argue that CI is in full compliance with that since their
assignment supports connectivity between users in Africa and their clients'
services. In that case, only IP space used outside of Africa not advertised
to the internet would be in violation.


I think any reasonable person would argue "in support of connectivity back 
to the AFRINIC region." would cover things like providing IP addressing 
for a network that extends into the AfriNIC region, and not to leasing IPs 
to random orgs outside the AfriNIC region for use on networks that don't 
extend into the AfriNIC region.


Regardless, I gather from other messages, the issue is CI claims this is a 
misapplication of policy (or AfriNIC f'd up writing the CPM) and CI claims 
5.4.6.2 doesn't apply because their allocations pre-date AfriNIC being 
down to their final /8.


It sure looks to me like this was a major oversight, as 5.4.6.2 doesn't 
appear to have anything to do with soft landing, but is under the soft 
landing section of the CPM (which says "This section describes how AFRINIC 
shall assign...resources during the "Exhaustion Phase""



--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 StackPath, Sr. Neteng   |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:28 PM Sabri Berisha  wrote:
>
> - On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> [ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ]
>
> > "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use
> > outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to the
> > AFRINIC region."
>
> > AfriNIC's policy is not at all vague on the matter that their resources
> > are to be used in or to support connectivity in the AFRINIC region.
>
> In all fairness, that is as ambiguous as it can be. What constitutes "support
> of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region"?


I can try helping with that: in underserved regions it's not unusual
for network services for that population to be physically hosted out
of the region. For instance, if you have a hosting service that only
accepts South African rands and your language options are Afrikaans
and Zulu, you can credibly argue to AfriNIC that you are targeting its
service region and are eligible for AfriNIC number resources.

But you would need to be upfront with that, including mentioning that
your upstreams are not from Africa and your installations won't be in
Africa.
Otherwise you applied for number resources under false pretenses, and
will bear the risk of such.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote:

Hi,

[ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ]

> "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use
> outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to the
> AFRINIC region."

> AfriNIC's policy is not at all vague on the matter that their resources
> are to be used in or to support connectivity in the AFRINIC region.

In all fairness, that is as ambiguous as it can be. What constitutes "support
of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region"?

It's easy to argue that CI is in full compliance with that since their
assignment supports connectivity between users in Africa and their clients'
services. In that case, only IP space used outside of Africa not advertised
to the internet would be in violation. 

I'm not saying this is how it /should/ be read, I'm just saying that a plain
text analysis of that section is not very restrictive.

Now, obviously, most people on this list will agree with the assessment that,
nicely put, CI is not complying with the /spirit/ of the policy. We all know
why that language exists. So, as far as I can see now, this is a classical
case of "you're not wrong, you're just an a^H^H^H^H^H^H".

But again, IANAL, yet, and I can't comment on legal matters. In the end, it
will be a judge that will rule who is in the wrong.

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 12:17 , John Curran  wrote:
> 
> On 31 Aug 2021, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong  > wrote:
>> 
>>> Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely 
>>> internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data 
>>> center?   Sure…  and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per 
>>> policy.  We also have folks who get creative and make similar requests for 
>>> purposes of obtaining address blocks from ARIN – absent any bona fide 
>>> networking need –for subsequent monetization and these reviewed, revoked, 
>>> and can be referred to criminal fraud proceedings.   
>> 
>> Yes, but in the ARIN region, you have also made it very clear that if needs 
>> change, ARIN will not attempt to revoke or reclaim space based on that 
>> change in need.
> 
> Owen - 
> 
> ARIN has full authority to revoke number resources based on breach of our 
> Registration Services Agreement (RSA) by a customer. We do exercise that 
> authority with significant caution, but will do so when the situation 
> warrants – and I would expect any other RIR to do the same in enforcing the 
> particular terms of their own RSA agreement. 

Agreed. Nonetheless, you have repeatedly stood in front of the community and 
stated that if the only violation of ARIN policy is insufficient utilization, 
ARIN will not take action against the organization to revoke or reclaim the 
resources.

> As I understand it, AFRINIC has initiated a rather small number of resource 
> reviews after completion of its most recent database audit – one might argue 
> that they should have initiated more/fewer/none-at-all, but one cannot 
> logically assert that AFRINIC lacks the right to enforce the plain language 
> of their RSA agreement when a review indicates that a breach of that 
> agreement has occurred. 

Depending on your definition of rather small. I hear it’s ≥ 1% of all resource 
holders so far and climbing.

> You also may not like that the AFRINIC RSA has recipients acknowledging that 
> they are 'bestowed with an exclusive right of use of those number resources 
> within the ambit of the “need” which it has justified in its application and 
> for no other purpose during the currency of the present agreement’,  but 
> please recognize that "your client” apparently liked that provision well 
> enough to agree to it in order to receive the address blocks – so there’s 
> really not much more to be said in this regard. 

Please also note that there is a provision further down in the agreement for 
dealing with modifications as they come up.

Whether my client did or did not comply with that provision is a matter for the 
courts at this point and I can’t comment on the exact nature of that particular 
issue as a result. However, I think there is adequate public information 
available to show that there is at least some legitimate dispute as to the 
facts of whether my client is is or is not in compliance with the RSA. I look 
forward to the courts decision on the matter as once that comes, I will be able 
to talk more freely regardless of the outcome.

Owen

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

[John Curran]

On 31 Aug 2021, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:

Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely 
internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data 
center?   Sure…  and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per 
policy.  We also have folks who get creative and make similar requests for 
purposes of obtaining address blocks from ARIN – absent any bona fide 
networking need –for subsequent monetization and these reviewed, revoked, and 
can be referred to criminal fraud proceedings.

Yes, but in the ARIN region, you have also made it very clear that if needs 
change, ARIN will not attempt to revoke or reclaim space based on that change 
in need.

Owen -

ARIN has full authority to revoke number resources based on breach of our 
Registration Services Agreement (RSA) by a customer. We do exercise that 
authority with significant caution, but will do so when the situation warrants 
– and I would expect any other RIR to do the same in enforcing the particular 
terms of their own RSA agreement.

As I understand it, AFRINIC has initiated a rather small number of resource 
reviews after completion of its most recent database audit – one might argue 
that they should have initiated more/fewer/none-at-all, but one cannot 
logically assert that AFRINIC lacks the right to enforce the plain language of 
their RSA agreement when a review indicates that a breach of that agreement has 
occurred.

You also may not like that the AFRINIC RSA has recipients acknowledging that 
they are 'bestowed with an exclusive right of use of those number resources 
within the ambit of the “need” which it has justified in its application and 
for no other purpose during the currency of the present agreement’,  but please 
recognize that "your client” apparently liked that provision well enough to 
agree to it in order to receive the address blocks – so there’s really not much 
more to be said in this regard.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 08:40 , Jon Lewis  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> 
>>  On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
>> 
>>  AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what 
>> ISPs do. It’s the definition of an LIR.
>> 
>>  Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide 
>> addresses (mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services.
>> Which is why CI informed AfriNIC in their request that they were going
>> to have no network and provide connectivity-less services to CI
>> customers, right ?
>> 
>>  However, there’s no such policy requirement in the AFRINIC governing 
>> documents.
> 
> Sorry...I haven't been keeping up with all the messages in this thread, but 
> assuming it's not already been brought up, what about this, which has been in 
> the AfriNIC CPM since v0.1 (i.e. the beginning):
> 
> "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use outside 
> the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to the AFRINIC 
> region."

That’s part of the soft landing policy and applies only to prefixes issued by 
AFRINIC after the beginning of exhaustion phase 1.

It has been in the CPM since its first version, but the CPM is a relatively 
recent phenomenon at AFRINIC, having had scattered policy documents containing 
each adopted policy prior to that.

> I ran into issues years ago, trying to do an additional allocation request 
> with ARIN, only to be told that usage of ARIN-allocated resources 
> out-of-region did not count toward utilization due to some very vague 
> language in the NRPM section 2.2 leading to the "invention" of unwritten 
> policy.  The issue with out of region use of ARIN-allocated resources was 
> eventually resolved with a NRPM section being added explicitly allowing it.

Correct.

> AfriNIC's policy is not at all vague on the matter that their resources are 
> to be used in or to support connectivity in the AFRINIC region.

Try again. AFRINIC’s soft landing policy is not at all vague about prefixes 
issued after soft landing exhaustion phase 1 began. This does not apply to any 
of the prefixes issued to Cloud Innovation.

>> From what I've read, Cloud Innovation primarily uses their AfriNIC IP 
> resources out of region.  How they managed to get a couple of /11s and /12s 
> from AfriNIC seems to be a massive failure on the part of AfriNIC's staff, or 
> did their business model radically change after so much space had been 
> allocated?

Their business model has had to radically change to adapt to radically changing 
circumstances in the marketplace where they started.

Owen

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely 
> internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data 
> center?   Sure…  and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per 
> policy.  We also have folks who get creative and make similar requests for 
> purposes of obtaining address blocks from ARIN – absent any bona fide 
> networking need –for subsequent monetization and these reviewed, revoked, and 
> can be referred to criminal fraud proceedings.   

Yes, but in the ARIN region, you have also made it very clear that if needs 
change, ARIN will not attempt to revoke or reclaim space based on that change 
in need.

> For those who need IP address blocks for their network operation, it’s really 
> not complicated – you can call, email, or chat with the ARIN Helpdesk and 
> we’ll work you through it.   I don’t know about the policy in the other 
> region, but can state unequivocally that if you call with the need for IP 
> address space for an actual operational networking situation, we’ll do our 
> best to help you with your request and get it approved based on whatever the 
> policies allow.   I can also say that if one's purported operational need for 
> address space is "for reassignment to customers but completely absent any 
> networking service”, then don’t bother applying to ARIN – the policies do not 
> provide for issuance under such circumstances and have never in the ARIN 
> region.

OTOH, a GRE tunnel is sufficient to qualify as “networking service” in the ARIN 
region, so all one needs is the tiniest of fig leaves in front of ones lease to 
make it work.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

]
> AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for purposes of leasing. There is a public 
> statement to this effect.
>
>
> Yes. Nonetheless, it does not change the fact that every LIR that is a 
> resource member of AFRINIC leases IPV4 addresses every day, nor does
> it change the fact that every allocation AFRINIC has ever issued to any LIR 
> has been for the purpose of leasing them to customers. It’s just one
> of many false public statements made by AFRINIC staff in the past several 
> years.


And yet, you still haven't answered whether the IPv4 application was
made informing AfriNIC that no connectivity services would be
provided.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 00:44 , Noah  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 03:08 Owen DeLong,  > wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Owen,
>> 
>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka > > > wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> > 
>> >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his 
>> >> business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing 
>> >> policy.
>> > 
>> > And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.
>> 
>> Yes… Because it is permitted by the rules as they exist.
>> 
>> Cloud Innovation your employer is in the business of leasing IPv4 addresses 
>> in Asia, USA and Europe etc.
> 
> Not my employer, my client.
> 
>> AFRINIC has never permitted this and Ashil from AFRINIC publicly stated as 
>> such in the below archived thread.
> 
> Yet their policies do not prohibit it.
> 
> AFRINIC policies are developed by the community in-line with AFRINIC 
> constitution and related RSA is signed by resource members in-line with the 
> AFRINIC constitution which enshrines the objectives of AFRINIC as the RIR for 
> Africa region.

Yes.

And currently, those policies do not prohibit or place any limitations on out 
of region use except those enshrined in the soft landing policy.

An attempt was made to create a policy several years ago to prohibit or 
restrict out of region use. That proposal did not receive general support from 
the community and was eventually withdrawn by the author.

> If you can find someplace where it is actually documented as a violation of 
> policy, then by
> all means, provide that, but you have so far failed to do so despite 
> repeatedly bringing up this argument.
> 
> I will quote from the AFRINIC bylaws (constution) here 
> https://afrinic.net/bylaws/ 
> 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;   

Yes: 

> 
> to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet resources for 
> the purposes of enabling communications via open system network protocols
Which covers what Cloud Innovation is doing, so is allowed by the bylaws…
> and to assist in the development and growth of the Internet in the African 
> region;
This creates an additional capability for AFRINIC, but in no way imposes a 
restriction on its members.

The same can be said of clauses 2 and 3. As written, this section of the bylaws 
is clearly written to define the key obligations and responsibilities of the 
company (AFRINIC). Other than possibly the first item, as covered above, there 
is nothing here which restricts or inhibits the conduct of AFRINIC’s members.

> 
> It’s simply not sufficient to say “they never allowed this” if it’s not 
> prohibited by actual policy.
> 
> 
> Allocation policies are such that resource members abide by the AFRINIC 
> constitution.

Yes… Which Cloud Innovation has done.

> See above section 3.4 and the relevant subsections that refer to management 
> of number resource in reference to Africa region.

As I have shown, section 3.4 does not impose the restrictions you appear to 
think it does. The plain text reading of the language in section 3.4 is the 
obligations and/or duties imposed on AFRINIC. It does not extend those 
obligations or duties to AFRINIC’s members.


>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> You always claim policy blah blah blah in your defence of Cloud Innovation 
>> Ltd and Larus business model.
>> 
>> But there it is. AFRINIC has never approved any IPv4 space for purposes of 
>> leasing them for money as through they were a product.
> 
> Except that they have and do every day… ISPs all lease IPv4 space for money. 
> That’s what they do with them. They certainly don’t use
> them exclusively on their own networks… They lease them to their customers.
> 
> AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for purposes of 

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Jon Lewis]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:




  On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl  wrote:

  AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what 
ISPs do. It’s the definition of an LIR.

  Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide 
addresses (mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services.


Which is why CI informed AfriNIC in their request that they were going
to have no network and provide connectivity-less services to CI
customers, right ?

  However, there’s no such policy requirement in the AFRINIC governing 
documents.


Sorry...I haven't been keeping up with all the messages in this thread, 
but assuming it's not already been brought up, what about this, which has 
been in the AfriNIC CPM since v0.1 (i.e. the beginning):


"5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use 
outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to the 
AFRINIC region."


I ran into issues years ago, trying to do an additional allocation request 
with ARIN, only to be told that usage of ARIN-allocated resources 
out-of-region did not count toward utilization due to some very vague 
language in the NRPM section 2.2 leading to the "invention" of unwritten 
policy.  The issue with out of region use of ARIN-allocated resources was 
eventually resolved with a NRPM section being added explicitly allowing 
it.


AfriNIC's policy is not at all vague on the matter that their resources 
are to be used in or to support connectivity in the AFRINIC region.


From what I've read, Cloud Innovation primarily uses their AfriNIC IP 
resources out of region.  How they managed to get a couple of /11s and 
/12s from AfriNIC seems to be a massive failure on the part of AfriNIC's 
staff, or did their business model radically change after so much space 
had been allocated?


--
 Jon Lewis, MCP :)   |  I route
 StackPath, Sr. Neteng   |  therefore you are
_ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_

Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

[John Curran]

On 30 Aug 2021, at 9:31 PM, Christopher Morrow  wrote:
> 
> (I'm going to regret this in the morning, but...)

Perhaps...

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:12 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG  > wrote:
> 
> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs 
> do. It’s the definition of an LIR.
> 
> 
> All of the RIR's do this, yes. Also, yes LIR/ISP allocate space to their 
> customers. That space may never be actually seen
> on the ISP/LIR network and may never be seen on the greater Internet...

Quite correct.   The operational need for address space can indeed by 
“internal”; i.e. not routed on the greater Internet. 
 
> Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses 
> (mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services.
> 
> 
> If you (royal you) were a datacenter operator and allocated ip space to your 
> customers (machines in racks or vms on machines in racks, etc),
> is there a real difference here if the machines/vms never exposed or used 
> their IP addresses outside if the tiny world they inhabit ? (the rack or 
> machine)
> 
> The want of unique addressing is not uncommon, the need for this in the face 
> of M or other business requirements isn't new.
> Yes, these addresses may not be used outside of the datacenter, or the rack 
> or the machine, but they are still accounted for in:
>   1) the RIR (to the LIR)
>   2) the LIR (to the customer)
>   3) the customer (on machine/vm)
> 
> It's a resource that the LIR/datacenter operator must account for, and must 
> have capacity planning bits/pieces in place to handle.

Also all correct, but I will note that in the above case there is some form of 
networking services being provided and thus require the use of unique addresses 
to make it happen.   Again, the routing to the greater internet isn’t 
necessarily a component to having the need for IP address space to provide 
networking services. 

> I think the discussion about 'with connectivity services' is a bit 
> orthogonal. I also think that if there were such a policy requirement
> all RIR and LIR would be in violation of that requirement immediately, so I 
> don't imagine that there's going to be one forthcoming.

You have read “connectivity” to be “routed on the greater Internet” and yet 
we’re all aware that there are many useful networking services that don’t 
equate - a broadband connection to one’s home may only route a single IP to the 
greater Internet, but all the devices inside still benefit from the network 
service provided.  Even if the network service provided is entirely internal, 
there is still networking involved and thus an operational need for IP address 
to make such networking work. 

In the ARIN region, if you request IP address space, we assess that per the 
community-developed Number Resource Policy Manual, i.e. 
>   All assignments are made 
accordingly to “operational need” even to this day - i.e. you have to have some 
actual networking requirement if you are to be issued an IP address block, 
although this doesn’t equate to “must be routed on the public Internet”.   

Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely 
internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data 
center?   Sure…  and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per 
policy.  We also have folks who get creative and make similar requests for 
purposes of obtaining address blocks from ARIN – absent any bona fide 
networking need –for subsequent monetization and these reviewed, revoked, and 
can be referred to criminal fraud proceedings.   

For those who need IP address blocks for their network operation, it’s really 
not complicated – you can call, email, or chat with the ARIN Helpdesk and we’ll 
work you through it.   I don’t know about the policy in the other region, but 
can state unequivocally that if you call with the need for IP address space for 
an actual operational networking situation, we’ll do our best to help you with 
your request and get it approved based on whatever the policies allow.   I can 
also say that if one's purported operational need for address space is "for 
reassignment to customers but completely absent any networking service”, then 
don’t bother applying to ARIN – the policies do not provide for issuance under 
such circumstances and have never in the ARIN region.   

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Noah]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 05:08 John Kristoff,  wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700
> Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>
> > Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the
> internet.
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect.  In addition
> to the traditional services that are relied upon in a variety of daily
> operations (e.g. WHOIS, IRR, DNS reverse delegations), the increasingly
> important RPKI TAs/PPs services are of utmost importance in the daily
> operations of an increasing number of networks within and outside their
> region.  They are just a different kind of infrastructure service
> operator than we may be commonly thing of when it comes to network
> operations.
>


+1 as its important to remind folk the above and most importantly to
provide the additional distinct role of the RIR and their importance beyond
just managing INR allocations.

Noah


> John
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Noah]

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 03:08 Owen DeLong,  wrote:

>
>
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah  wrote:
>
>
> Owen,
>
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG,  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> >
>> >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his
>> business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing
>> policy.
>> >
>> > And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.
>>
>> Yes… Because it is permitted by the rules as they exist.
>
>
> Cloud Innovation your employer is in the business of leasing IPv4
> addresses in Asia, USA and Europe etc.
>
>
> Not my employer, my client.
>
> AFRINIC has never permitted this and Ashil from AFRINIC publicly stated as
> such in the below archived thread.
>
>
> Yet their policies do not prohibit it.
>

AFRINIC policies are developed by the community in-line with AFRINIC
constitution and related RSA is signed by resource members in-line with the
AFRINIC constitution which enshrines the objectives of AFRINIC as the RIR
for Africa region.

If you can find someplace where it is actually documented as a violation of
> policy, then by
> all means, provide that, but you have so far failed to do so despite
> repeatedly bringing up this argument.
>

I will quote from the AFRINIC bylaws (constution) here
https://afrinic.net/bylaws/

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;


> It’s simply not sufficient to say “they never allowed this” if it’s not
> prohibited by actual policy.
>


Allocation policies are such that resource members abide by the AFRINIC
constitution.

See above section 3.4 and the relevant subsections that refer to management
of number resource in reference to Africa region.



>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html
>
> You always claim policy blah blah blah in your defence of Cloud Innovation
> Ltd and Larus business model.
>
> But there it is. AFRINIC has never approved any IPv4 space for purposes of
> leasing them for money as through they were a product.
>
>
> Except that they have and do every day… ISPs all lease IPv4 space for
> money. That’s what they do with them. They certainly don’t use
> them exclusively on their own networks… They lease them to their customers.
>

AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for purposes of leasing. There is a public
statement to this effect.


> The key difference between the majority of them and Cloud Innovation is
> that most of them also include connectivity service in the lease
> and/or provide the lease in conjunction with some form of connectivity
> service. However, there’s nothing in the policy manual or the bylaws
> to support a requirement that leasing and connectivity be tied to each
> other.
>

What justification did Cloud Innovation provide to AFRINIC when requesting
for those millions of IPs?

Cheers
Noah


> Owen
>
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 07:22, Owen DeLong wrote:


Yes… AFRINIC’s actions of late are so illogical that when it comes to 
predicting them, all I can do is guess.


And suing them for US$1.8 billion + garnishing US$50 million is 
significantly more logical.


Got it.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 22:21 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/31/21 07:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
>> I guess that depends on whether or not AFRINIC is willing to engage in a 
>> reasonable
>> settlement effort within the next 2 months or not.
>> 
>> I guess we’ll see what they do.
> 
> Lots of guessing...
> 
> Mark.

Yes… AFRINIC’s actions of late are so illogical that when it comes to 
predicting them, all I can do is guess.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 07:16, Owen DeLong wrote:


I guess that depends on whether or not AFRINIC is willing to engage in a 
reasonable
settlement effort within the next 2 months or not.

I guess we’ll see what they do.


Lots of guessing...

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 22:06 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/31/21 01:29, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the 
>> current
>> situation.
>> 
>> AFRINIC has been given access to the equivalent of two months of operating 
>> costs
>> from their bank accounts in a recent court ruling, so they are nowhere close 
>> to shut
>> down. All of the chicken littles running around claiming otherwise 
>> notwithstanding,
>> no, AFRINIC was never actually shut down.
> 
> Wow. Problem solved.
> 
> Mark.

I guess that depends on whether or not AFRINIC is willing to engage in a 
reasonable
settlement effort within the next 2 months or not.

I guess we’ll see what they do.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 04:42, Tom Beecher wrote:

It strikes me that ( without pointing at anyone in particular ) that 
there's a bit of absolutism trending in this conversation.


It's possible for many things in this list to be true.

- It's possible that AFRINIC may have been following it's policies 
accurately at the time of the initial allocations,and the current 
leadership was overstepping their bounds trying to reclaim them.
- It's possible that AFRINIC may NOT have been following it's own 
policies at the time of the initial allocations, and the current 
leadership is trying to correct those past mistakes.

- It's possible that CI accurately represented information to AFRINIC.
- It's possible that CI did not.
- It's possible that CI has, at all times,been properly in compliance 
with AFRNIC policies.

- It's possible that CI has not.
- It's possible that CI may been been following the letter, if not the 
spirit of the policies.
- It's possible that AFRINIC was intentionally delaying restoration of 
the allocations after the court order.
- It's possible that AFRINIC was a little slow to respond, waiting on 
advice from legal counsel before taking action.


I think we could mostly agree that while potentially frustrating ,such 
things can and have happened in the past,and can and have been rectified.


However, where I think we ALL should be able to agree is that CI's 
garnishment action is exceptionally punitive and out of line.


I agree with this - which is why I am not spending any cycles arguing 
about whether the bylaws were side-stepped or not (there is already too 
much of that noise on the AFRINIC RPD list).


My main focus is that CI got AFRINIC to undo the revocation, but 
continued to go Pulp Fiction on them after that.


We all have some kind of work so we can put food on tables and feed our 
wives, husbands, children and extended families. In a period and time 
where work and income are hanging on by a thread, on a continent, no 
less, that has significantly less resources to go around compared to 
where CI come from and whom they employ, what this issue highlights is a 
pure example of where some corners of society are trying to place 
importance - money and things, instead of community and solving real 
problems.


It is disgusting.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 01:29, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the current
situation.

AFRINIC has been given access to the equivalent of two months of operating costs
from their bank accounts in a recent court ruling, so they are nowhere close to 
shut
down. All of the chicken littles running around claiming otherwise 
notwithstanding,
no, AFRINIC was never actually shut down.


Wow. Problem solved.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 01:19, Nathan Angelacos wrote:


Amen.  Sucks to be moral.  But at the end of the day, you have to go to
sleep and say I did what was moral.

To me, that is NANOG.


Yep, easy to say when these "morals" are not threatening you and your 
family.


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/31/21 01:08, Owen DeLong wrote:


Just as I would fight for the rights of those I disagree with to express their 
views in the US under the first amendment rights granted by the US Constitution.


I fail to see how the U.S. Constitution is an applicable example for 
what CI are doing in Africa.




If one is to believe in the rule of law, one must not attempt to distort the 
law to punish those you do not like if they are compliant with the law. 
Instead, work through the legitimate processes as they exist to change the laws.


Well, the law did work. AFRINIC were asked not to revoke the CI space, 
which they complied with.


The distortion, here, is that CI took this matter significantly further, 
in an effort to cripple AFRINIC from attempting to work through this in 
any other way.


There is no way of sugar-coating it, Owen. It's bad form, and not a 
humane way of dealing with an asset that requires communal trust capital.




There are a variety of possible ways in which the AFRINIC community could 
develop legitimate policies which would be problematic for the business model 
of Cloud Innovation (or at least require some changes to their business 
practices). However, no such policy has yet come to consensus and attempting to 
inflict policies which don’t exist on any resource member and revoke that 
member’s resources according to said non-existent policies is just plain wrong. 
As I have stated before, I think that AFRINIC’s willing to engage in practices 
not supported by the bylaws, CPM, or RSA is the greater threat to the RIR 
system, so I oppose AFRINIC on that basis. Quite literally, IMHO, in the 
interests of this very community.


None of this matters because the issue was taken to court, and they 
found in favour of CI. That should have been the end, both sides reset, 
and play the game another way that does not irresponsibly hurt 
livelihoods during tough pandemic times.


The extra gloating by freezing AFRINIC's operations was totally 
unnecessary and opportunistic, against an organization that does not 
have the resources to play the same game at that level. How is that 
helping anyone, really?





I get that it’s popular to dislike Lu.


I, personally, do not have any thoughts on Lu. I'm too busy trying to 
build the African Internet.




  He’s not a particularly likable guy at first blush. He’s arrogant, profit 
focused, and comes from a non-technical business background. But this isn’t a 
popularity contest. This is about the very soul of the AFRINIC and whether we 
want an organization that operates according to its governing documents, or one 
which substitutes the ideology and judgment of its staff in place of the 
guidance from the community in order to carry out a vendetta against a member 
that is unpopular.


Well, looks like he got the jump on AFRINIC with that "vendetta", then. 
I don't see him struggling to pay any of this employees so they can have 
a meal tonight.


This will definitely make him much more likeable, less arrogant, and 
more humane.


At the end of the day, what we do on this earth is about people. All 
this Internet stuff we build is about people, not about itself. While 
it's easy to condense things into "it's not personal, it's business", 
that is not real life. In real life, we spend inordinate amounts of 
personal time building businesses. It's a personal thing. It's a people 
thing.


CI will need the support of people, one day. I hope to be alive to see 
what happens, on that morning.




So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in this 
case, I believe AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate and acted contrary to its 
own policies and bylaws as they are written. I am standing up for what I 
believe to be right, even though I don’t particularly like the side that puts 
me on in this case. I tried my best to make this clear before things escalated. 
I did everything I could to avert this escalation, but I faced even more 
problematic egos on the AFRINIC side than on the Cloud Innovation side.

I am here doing what I am doing because I have ethics and morals. Because even 
though I often disagree with Lu, in this case, he happens to be right and 
AFRINIC must not be allowed to act so irresponsibly in this matter.


Let me go donate some more to AFRINIC staff, so they can have some bread 
and water before they put to bed and have to think about tomorrow. I've 
been out of school for a long time, but when I went there, ethics and 
morals were not a macro nutrient.


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 19:06 , John Kristoff  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700
> Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
> 
>> Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the 
>> internet.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect.  In addition
> to the traditional services that are relied upon in a variety of daily
> operations (e.g. WHOIS, IRR, DNS reverse delegations), the increasingly
> important RPKI TAs/PPs services are of utmost importance in the daily
> operations of an increasing number of networks within and outside their
> region.  They are just a different kind of infrastructure service
> operator than we may be commonly thing of when it comes to network
> operations.

Yes, but those services continue even if the registry isn’t open for a couple 
of days.

We can agree to disagree about how useful it is to have a cryptographically 
signed
indication of what to prepend to your spoofing.

My point is that if an RIR itself closes for a few days, its an event that, 
well, happens
pretty much every weekend. After a brief time without the RIR there to make 
changes,
the operations performed by that RIR will almost certainly be taken up either 
temporarily
or permanently by the other RIRs.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Randy Bush]

we all, in true nanog tradition, sure do talk a lot.  but, to repeat,
i put my money where my mouth is.  you should too.

https://www.tespok.co.ke/?page_id=14001

randy

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher]

It strikes me that ( without pointing at anyone in particular ) that
there's a bit of absolutism trending in this conversation.

It's possible for many things in this list to be true.

- It's possible that AFRINIC may have been following it's policies
accurately at the time of the initial allocations,and the current
leadership was overstepping their bounds trying to reclaim them.
- It's possible that AFRINIC may NOT have been following it's own policies
at the time of the initial allocations, and the current leadership is
trying to correct those past mistakes.
- It's possible that CI accurately represented information to AFRINIC.
- It's possible that CI did not.
- It's possible that CI has, at all times,been properly in compliance with
AFRNIC policies.
- It's possible that CI has not.
- It's possible that CI may been been following the letter, if not the
spirit of the policies.
- It's possible that AFRINIC was intentionally delaying restoration of the
allocations after the court order.
- It's possible that AFRINIC was a little slow to respond, waiting on
advice from legal counsel before taking action.

I think we could mostly agree that while potentially frustrating ,such
things can and have happened in the past,and can and have been rectified.

However, where I think we ALL should be able to agree is that CI's
garnishment action is exceptionally punitive and out of line.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:08 PM John Kristoff  wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700
> Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>
> > Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the
> internet.
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect.  In addition
> to the traditional services that are relied upon in a variety of daily
> operations (e.g. WHOIS, IRR, DNS reverse delegations), the increasingly
> important RPKI TAs/PPs services are of utmost importance in the daily
> operations of an increasing number of networks within and outside their
> region.  They are just a different kind of infrastructure service
> operator than we may be commonly thing of when it comes to network
> operations.
>
> John
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[John Kristoff]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700
Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:

> Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the 
> internet.

Hi Owen,

Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect.  In addition
to the traditional services that are relied upon in a variety of daily
operations (e.g. WHOIS, IRR, DNS reverse delegations), the increasingly
important RPKI TAs/PPs services are of utmost importance in the daily
operations of an increasing number of networks within and outside their
region.  They are just a different kind of infrastructure service
operator than we may be commonly thing of when it comes to network
operations.

John

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Christopher Morrow]

(I'm going to regret this in the morning, but...)

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:12 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG 
wrote:

>
> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs
> do. It’s the definition of an LIR.
>
>
All of the RIR's do this, yes. Also, yes LIR/ISP allocate space to their
customers. That space may never be actually seen
on the ISP/LIR network and may never be seen on the greater Internet...


> Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses
> (mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services.
>
>
If you (royal you) were a datacenter operator and allocated ip space to
your customers (machines in racks or vms on machines in racks, etc),
is there a real difference here if the machines/vms never exposed or used
their IP addresses outside if the tiny world they inhabit ? (the rack or
machine)

The want of unique addressing is not uncommon, the need for this in the
face of M or other business requirements isn't new.
Yes, these addresses may not be used outside of the datacenter, or the rack
or the machine, but they are still accounted for in:
  1) the RIR (to the LIR)
  2) the LIR (to the customer)
  3) the customer (on machine/vm)

It's a resource that the LIR/datacenter operator must account for, and must
have capacity planning bits/pieces in place to handle.

I think the discussion about 'with connectivity services' is a bit
orthogonal. I also think that if there were such a policy requirement
all RIR and LIR would be in violation of that requirement immediately, so I
don't imagine that there's going to be one forthcoming.


> However, there’s no such policy requirement in the AFRINIC governing
> documents.
>

I don't think you can safely deploy a policy like this Owen (which perhaps
you mean here as well).

-chris

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
> 
>> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs 
>> do. It’s the definition of an LIR.
>> 
>> Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses 
>> (mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services.
> 
> Which is why CI informed AfriNIC in their request that they were going
> to have no network and provide connectivity-less services to CI
> customers, right ?
> 
>> However, there’s no such policy requirement in the AFRINIC governing 
>> documents.
> 
> All RIRs were subject to RFC 2050, now RFC 7020, which states:
> "1)  Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP
>   addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources
>   are allocated are finite.  As such, allocations must be made in
>   accordance with the operational needs of those running the
>   networks that make use of these number resources and by taking
>   into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation."
> 
> If there is no network, there is no use of such number resources.
> 

This is a clear misreading of RFC-2050 and later RFC-7020.

No RIR is subject to them. They are purported to, I quote:

   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.

As such, errata notwithstanding (for example, it misleadingly claims that 
multi-regional entities interact
with multiple RIRs which is only sometimes true), RFC-7020 can’t be cited as 
imposing any rules
upon RIRs and any case where its content differs from current reality 
represents errata in the RFC and
not misconduct by the RIR or its members or customers.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs 
> do. It’s the definition of an LIR.
>
> Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses 
> (mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services.

Which is why CI informed AfriNIC in their request that they were going
to have no network and provide connectivity-less services to CI
customers, right ?

> However, there’s no such policy requirement in the AFRINIC governing 
> documents.

All RIRs were subject to RFC 2050, now RFC 7020, which states:
"1)  Allocation Pool Management: Due to the fixed lengths of IP
   addresses and AS numbers, the pools from which these resources
   are allocated are finite.  As such, allocations must be made in
   accordance with the operational needs of those running the
   networks that make use of these number resources and by taking
   into consideration pool limitations at the time of allocation."

If there is no network, there is no use of such number resources.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:32 , Noah  wrote:
> 
> 
> Owen 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG,  > wrote:
> 
> So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in 
> this case, I believe AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate
> 
> If you believe, then we leave it at that. Its beliefs.

Sigh… I’m not sure why so many on your side get wrapped up in this word believe 
as if it is somehow exclusive to religion.

Pick whichever of the following leading works for you:

I am convinced that:
It is my opinion that:
The facts show that:
A plaintext reading of the AFRINIC governing documents shows that:
[]:
AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate and acted contrary to its own 
policies and bylaws as they are written.

> AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for the purpose of leasing them as some 
> product in the manner in which your employer Larus/CIL does.

You continue to call Cloud Innovation my employer… They are my Client, not my 
employer.

AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs do. 
It’s the definition of an LIR.

Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses 
(mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services.

However, there’s no such policy requirement in the AFRINIC governing documents.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah  wrote:
> 
> 
> Owen,
> 
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG,  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> > 
> >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his 
> >> business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing 
> >> policy.
> > 
> > And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.
> 
> Yes… Because it is permitted by the rules as they exist.
> 
> Cloud Innovation your employer is in the business of leasing IPv4 addresses 
> in Asia, USA and Europe etc.

Not my employer, my client.

> AFRINIC has never permitted this and Ashil from AFRINIC publicly stated as 
> such in the below archived thread.

Yet their policies do not prohibit it. If you can find someplace where it is 
actually documented as a violation of policy, then by
all means, provide that, but you have so far failed to do so despite repeatedly 
bringing up this argument.

It’s simply not sufficient to say “they never allowed this” if it’s not 
prohibited by actual policy.

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2021-February/003907.html
>  
> 
> 
> You always claim policy blah blah blah in your defence of Cloud Innovation 
> Ltd and Larus business model.
> 
> But there it is. AFRINIC has never approved any IPv4 space for purposes of 
> leasing them for money as through they were a product.

Except that they have and do every day… ISPs all lease IPv4 space for money. 
That’s what they do with them. They certainly don’t use
them exclusively on their own networks… They lease them to their customers.

The key difference between the majority of them and Cloud Innovation is that 
most of them also include connectivity service in the lease
and/or provide the lease in conjunction with some form of connectivity service. 
However, there’s nothing in the policy manual or the bylaws
to support a requirement that leasing and connectivity be tied to each other.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Noah]

Owen

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG,  wrote:

>
> So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in
> this case, I believe AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate


If you believe, then we leave it at that. Its beliefs.

and acted contrary to its own policies and bylaws as they are written.


AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for the purpose of leasing them as some
product in the manner in which your employer Larus/CIL does.

This is why, both you and Lu have been asked a simple question which is...

Is the purpose for which you are using the IPs today (leasing them for a
dollar), the same purpose for which your justified the needs when you first
applied for them from AFRINIC?

Yes or No?

Noah

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the current
situation.

AFRINIC has been given access to the equivalent of two months of operating costs
from their bank accounts in a recent court ruling, so they are nowhere close to 
shut
down. All of the chicken littles running around claiming otherwise 
notwithstanding,
no, AFRINIC was never actually shut down.

Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the 
internet. They
come into play for adds and changes, primarily and those transactions while 
important
are not generally urgent. Were AFRINIC unable to staff its offices for some 
period of
time, I’m quite certain that the other RIRs would be able to take up those key 
functions,
either by loaning personnel to AFRINIC or by taking over those necessary roles 
as
needed either temporarily or permanently.

So while having the system react strongly to such a threat would be 
understandable,
that’s a very overblown and inaccurate characterization of the threat in 
question.

Owen


> On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:00 , Mike Hale  wrote:
> 
> But to be clear, if this was a simple court case I don't think anyone
> on this list would have an issue with simply sitting back and letting
> the court decide.
> 
> You have to remember though that CI in this case has essentially
> forced one of the major registrars to virtually shut down.  That's a
> direct attack on the system that is of fundamental importance to the
> proper running of the Internet.  Having the system react strongly to
> such a threat is entirely understandable.
> 
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:40 AM Sabri Berisha  wrote:
>> 
>> - On Aug 30, 2021, at 6:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
>> 
>>> And that's why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next
>> 
>> entity that ends up with those IP addresses long after CI has gone into
>> oblivion will have its engineers debug odd routing issues for years. We all
>> know that people regularly fail to update their manually entered filters on
>> at least a few of their routers.
>> 
>> The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person to
>> go out and engage in vigilante justice if a court decides against them. The
>> very fabric of our civilized society depends on us resolving our conflicts
>> in court, not out on the (virtual) streets. You may disagree with a ruling
>> but I implore you to respect it.
>> 
>> Rules... Without them we'd live with the animals.*
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Sabri
>> 
>> *(c) John Wick
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Nathan Angelacos]

On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 16:08 -0700, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I am here doing what I am doing because I have ethics and morals.
> Because even though I often disagree with Lu, in this case, he
> happens to be right and AFRINIC must not be allowed to act so
> irresponsibly in this matter.
> 
> Owen
> 

Amen.  Sucks to be moral.  But at the end of the day, you have to go to
sleep and say I did what was moral. 

To me, that is NANOG.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Noah]

Owen,

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG,  wrote:

>
>
> > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> >
> >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his
> business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing
> policy.
> >
> > And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.
>
> Yes… Because it is permitted by the rules as they exist.


Cloud Innovation your employer is in the business of leasing IPv4 addresses
in Asia, USA and Europe etc.

AFRINIC has never permitted this and Ashil from AFRINIC publicly stated as
such in the below archived thread.

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

You always claim policy blah blah blah in your defence of Cloud Innovation
Ltd and Larus business model.

But there it is. AFRINIC has never approved any IPv4 space for purposes of
leasing them for money as through they were a product.

Noah

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business 
>> model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy.
> 
> And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.

Yes… Because it is permitted by the rules as they exist.

Just as I would fight for the rights of those I disagree with to express their 
views in the US under the first amendment rights granted by the US Constitution.

If one is to believe in the rule of law, one must not attempt to distort the 
law to punish those you do not like if they are compliant with the law. 
Instead, work through the legitimate processes as they exist to change the laws.

There are a variety of possible ways in which the AFRINIC community could 
develop legitimate policies which would be problematic for the business model 
of Cloud Innovation (or at least require some changes to their business 
practices). However, no such policy has yet come to consensus and attempting to 
inflict policies which don’t exist on any resource member and revoke that 
member’s resources according to said non-existent policies is just plain wrong. 
As I have stated before, I think that AFRINIC’s willing to engage in practices 
not supported by the bylaws, CPM, or RSA is the greater threat to the RIR 
system, so I oppose AFRINIC on that basis. Quite literally, IMHO, in the 
interests of this very community.

I get that it’s popular to dislike Lu. He’s not a particularly likable guy at 
first blush. He’s arrogant, profit focused, and comes from a non-technical 
business background. But this isn’t a popularity contest. This is about the 
very soul of the AFRINIC and whether we want an organization that operates 
according to its governing documents, or one which substitutes the ideology and 
judgment of its staff in place of the guidance from the community in order to 
carry out a vendetta against a member that is unpopular.

So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in this 
case, I believe AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate and acted contrary to its 
own policies and bylaws as they are written. I am standing up for what I 
believe to be right, even though I don’t particularly like the side that puts 
me on in this case. I tried my best to make this clear before things escalated. 
I did everything I could to avert this escalation, but I faced even more 
problematic egos on the AFRINIC side than on the Cloud Innovation side.

I am here doing what I am doing because I have ethics and morals. Because even 
though I often disagree with Lu, in this case, he happens to be right and 
AFRINIC must not be allowed to act so irresponsibly in this matter.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:37 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

>> I've ran an RBL for years, which many people used. It closed down more than
>> a decade ago. Out of 100 DNS queries I logged just now with a quick tcpdump
>> on one of my three DNS servers, I counted 51 for rbl.cluecentral.net. That's
>> why I'm advocating to reconsider your carpet-bombing (filter into oblivion)
>> recommendation. People don't remove them.
> 
> I understand the risk, but when choosing between that risk and the
> systemic risk for the RIR system, the choice for me is very clear.
> Kinda like removing a malignant tumor.

While I disagree with it, I do understand your point of view.

I'm a proponent of "your network, your rules". But, if you would choose
to filter the netblocks associated with this case, I would recommend that
you filter them in BGP and not ACL them into oblivion. That way your customers
won't be impacted (I have been on the customer end of something like this).

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

> I really, really don't want to upset Mel more than he already is, but Owen
> shared a link with an actual order of the court. After "consideration of the
> affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the
> merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court looked at the facts,
> made a determination and based on that ordered the asset freeze. That sounds
> like a (preliminary) ruling to me.

It has not. It's just an assessment that the assets involved can be
valued at that amount.

> I don't necessarily agree with it due to
> the implications it has on African internet operations, and, as Mark 
> rightfully
> brought up, all the employment that depends on it, but I have to respect it.

No need to agree or disagree with a court that hasn't made a decision
on this yet. And when a decision comes out some will agree, others
will disagree, and that will also be sorted out.


> And don't get me wrong: I am not informed enough as to the dispute itself so
> I'm unable to form an opinion on who is right and who is wrong here. People
> whom I deeply respect on this list are on opposite sides so that adds to the
> confusion. I am, however, concerned with the operational implications. That's
> why I donated to the keep-Afrinic-alive-fund.

There is another operational implication if RIRs are unable to enforce
deviations from the information provided when a resource holder
applied for them. Regardless of whether the business model is good or
bad, I don't see that party proving that they told AfriNIC at
application time of the usage they really did of the resources. But if
RIRs are unable to enforce those, they become book-keepers instead of
RIRs. All IPv4 allocation could be done with a single shared
spreadsheet for the whole world.


> I've ran an RBL for years, which many people used. It closed down more than
> a decade ago. Out of 100 DNS queries I logged just now with a quick tcpdump
> on one of my three DNS servers, I counted 51 for rbl.cluecentral.net. That's
> why I'm advocating to reconsider your carpet-bombing (filter into oblivion)
> recommendation. People don't remove them.

I understand the risk, but when choosing between that risk and the
systemic risk for the RIR system, the choice for me is very clear.
Kinda like removing a malignant tumor.

Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher]

>
> After "consideration of the
> affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the
> merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court looked at the
> facts,
> made a determination and based on that ordered the asset freeze.
>

There's an important distinction to be made here.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius did not ORDER the asset freeze. The order
AUTHORIZED CI to garnish $50MUSD of AFRINIC's assets "at it's own risks and
perils" .

This means that if AFRINIC countersues CI , and it is found in court that
CI did not have a valid claim to AFRINIC's assets, CI will be liable for
damages.



On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:09 PM Sabri Berisha  wrote:

> - On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Hello Rubens,
>
> First and foremost, I appreciate that you're keeping it civil.
>
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 2:35 PM Sabri Berisha 
> wrote:
>
> >> The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person
> to
> >> go out and engage in vigilante justice if a court decides against them.
> The
> >> very fabric of our civilized society depends on us resolving our
> conflicts
> >> in court, not out on the (virtual) streets. You may disagree with a
> ruling
> >> but I implore you to respect it.
> >
> > As previously mentioned, this is about something that doesn't involve
> > a court ruling, at least not yet, but a seizure request made by the
> > party to attack the sustainability of the RIR. Rulings that people
> > disagree have their own way inside the court system to be dealt with.
>
> I really, really don't want to upset Mel more than he already is, but Owen
> shared a link with an actual order of the court. After "consideration of
> the
> affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the
> merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court looked at the
> facts,
> made a determination and based on that ordered the asset freeze. That
> sounds
> like a (preliminary) ruling to me. I don't necessarily agree with it due
> to
> the implications it has on African internet operations, and, as Mark
> rightfully
> brought up, all the employment that depends on it, but I have to respect
> it.
>
> And don't get me wrong: I am not informed enough as to the dispute itself
> so
> I'm unable to form an opinion on who is right and who is wrong here. People
> whom I deeply respect on this list are on opposite sides so that adds to
> the
> confusion. I am, however, concerned with the operational implications.
> That's
> why I donated to the keep-Afrinic-alive-fund.
>
> I've ran an RBL for years, which many people used. It closed down more than
> a decade ago. Out of 100 DNS queries I logged just now with a quick tcpdump
> on one of my three DNS servers, I counted 51 for rbl.cluecentral.net.
> That's
> why I'm advocating to reconsider your carpet-bombing (filter into oblivion)
> recommendation. People don't remove them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

Hello Rubens,

First and foremost, I appreciate that you're keeping it civil.

> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 2:35 PM Sabri Berisha  wrote:

>> The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person to
>> go out and engage in vigilante justice if a court decides against them. The
>> very fabric of our civilized society depends on us resolving our conflicts
>> in court, not out on the (virtual) streets. You may disagree with a ruling
>> but I implore you to respect it.
> 
> As previously mentioned, this is about something that doesn't involve
> a court ruling, at least not yet, but a seizure request made by the
> party to attack the sustainability of the RIR. Rulings that people
> disagree have their own way inside the court system to be dealt with.

I really, really don't want to upset Mel more than he already is, but Owen
shared a link with an actual order of the court. After "consideration of the
affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the
merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court looked at the facts,
made a determination and based on that ordered the asset freeze. That sounds 
like a (preliminary) ruling to me. I don't necessarily agree with it due to 
the implications it has on African internet operations, and, as Mark rightfully
brought up, all the employment that depends on it, but I have to respect it.

And don't get me wrong: I am not informed enough as to the dispute itself so
I'm unable to form an opinion on who is right and who is wrong here. People
whom I deeply respect on this list are on opposite sides so that adds to the
confusion. I am, however, concerned with the operational implications. That's
why I donated to the keep-Afrinic-alive-fund.

I've ran an RBL for years, which many people used. It closed down more than
a decade ago. Out of 100 DNS queries I logged just now with a quick tcpdump
on one of my three DNS servers, I counted 51 for rbl.cluecentral.net. That's
why I'm advocating to reconsider your carpet-bombing (filter into oblivion)
recommendation. People don't remove them.

Thanks,

Sabri

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 2:35 PM Sabri Berisha  wrote:
>
> - On Aug 30, 2021, at 6:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And that's why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next
>
> entity that ends up with those IP addresses long after CI has gone into
> oblivion will have its engineers debug odd routing issues for years. We all
> know that people regularly fail to update their manually entered filters on
> at least a few of their routers.

We already have IP blocks with so much "background radiation" that
RIRs prefer not allocating them, or only allocating them to people
with distributed traffic handling capacity, like 1.1.1.x. But the less
of those there are, the better.

> The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person to
> go out and engage in vigilante justice if a court decides against them. The
> very fabric of our civilized society depends on us resolving our conflicts
> in court, not out on the (virtual) streets. You may disagree with a ruling
> but I implore you to respect it.

As previously mentioned, this is about something that doesn't involve
a court ruling, at least not yet, but a seizure request made by the
party to attack the sustainability of the RIR. Rulings that people
disagree have their own way inside the court system to be dealt with.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mike Hale]

But to be clear, if this was a simple court case I don't think anyone
on this list would have an issue with simply sitting back and letting
the court decide.

You have to remember though that CI in this case has essentially
forced one of the major registrars to virtually shut down.  That's a
direct attack on the system that is of fundamental importance to the
proper running of the Internet.  Having the system react strongly to
such a threat is entirely understandable.

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 10:40 AM Sabri Berisha  wrote:
>
> - On Aug 30, 2021, at 6:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And that's why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next
>
> entity that ends up with those IP addresses long after CI has gone into
> oblivion will have its engineers debug odd routing issues for years. We all
> know that people regularly fail to update their manually entered filters on
> at least a few of their routers.
>
> The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person to
> go out and engage in vigilante justice if a court decides against them. The
> very fabric of our civilized society depends on us resolving our conflicts
> in court, not out on the (virtual) streets. You may disagree with a ruling
> but I implore you to respect it.
>
> Rules... Without them we'd live with the animals.*
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri
>
> *(c) John Wick



-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Sabri Berisha]

- On Aug 30, 2021, at 6:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote:

> And that's why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next 

entity that ends up with those IP addresses long after CI has gone into
oblivion will have its engineers debug odd routing issues for years. We all
know that people regularly fail to update their manually entered filters on
at least a few of their routers.

The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person to
go out and engage in vigilante justice if a court decides against them. The
very fabric of our civilized society depends on us resolving our conflicts
in court, not out on the (virtual) streets. You may disagree with a ruling
but I implore you to respect it.

Rules... Without them we'd live with the animals.*

Thanks,

Sabri

*(c) John Wick

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

No stress, Valerie. I kind of knew it was borderline. I mean no disrespect.

It just irks me that non-African entities are coming into Africa to 
cause unnecessary and unneeded problems, for Africa.


Mark.

On 8/30/21 17:17, Valerie Wittkop wrote:

My apologies to Mark -

I sent a message in error to the full list that should have been sent 
privately.



Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org  | +1 
734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org 

NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Valerie Wittkop > wrote:


Please be mindful of usage guideline number 6 - Behavior or posts 
that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, or include foul 
language, character assassination, and *lack of respect *for other 
participants are prohibited.


Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org  | +1 
734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org 

NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

On Aug 30, 2021, at 10:44 AM, Mark Tinka > wrote:




On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:

You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his 
business model myself, but it is technically permitted under 
existing policy.


And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.

But hey, you have to eat.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

No stress, Valerie. I kind of new it was borderline. I mean no disrespect.

It just irks me that non-African entities are coming into Africa to 
cause unnecessary and unneeded problems, for Africa.


Mark.

On 8/30/21 17:17, Valerie Wittkop wrote:

My apologies to Mark -

I sent a message in error to the full list that should have been sent 
privately.



Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org  | +1 
734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org 

NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Valerie Wittkop > wrote:


Please be mindful of usage guideline number 6 - Behavior or posts 
that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, or include foul 
language, character assassination, and *lack of respect *for other 
participants are prohibited.


Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org  | +1 
734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org 

NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

On Aug 30, 2021, at 10:44 AM, Mark Tinka > wrote:




On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:

You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his 
business model myself, but it is technically permitted under 
existing policy.


And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.

But hey, you have to eat.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:38:01PM +0200,
 Mark Tinka  wrote 
 a message of 13 lines which said:

> Oddly, I recommended to a friend (one who promotes competitors do the wrong
> thing, hehe) that sending CI routes to /dev/null would be ideal.

Trollish idea of the day: since it is an IPv4-specific problem, stop
routing IPv4 completely. Since IPv6 addresses are not scarce and have
no monetary value, the problems of hoarders/thieves would disappear
(and it would make life simpler for network professionals).

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Valerie Wittkop]

My apologies to Mark - 

I sent a message in error to the full list that should have been sent privately.


Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org
NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:17 AM, Valerie Wittkop  wrote:
> 
> Please be mindful of usage guideline number 6 - Behavior or posts that are 
> defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, or include foul language, 
> character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are 
> prohibited.
>  
> 
> Valerie Wittkop
> Program Director
> vwitt...@nanog.org  | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | 
> www.nanog.org 
> NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
> ASN 19230
> 
>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 10:44 AM, Mark Tinka > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
>> 
>>> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his 
>>> business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing 
>>> policy.
>> 
>> And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.
>> 
>> But hey, you have to eat.
>> 
>> Mark.
> 

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Valerie Wittkop]

Please be mindful of usage guideline number 6 - Behavior or posts that are 
defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, or include foul language, character 
assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited.
 

Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org
NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 10:44 AM, Mark Tinka  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:
> 
>> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business 
>> model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy.
> 
> And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.
> 
> But hey, you have to eat.
> 
> Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Valerie Wittkop]

NANOG Mail list users,

This thread has had a few twists and turns, as well as ups and downs. So I am 
taking a moment on behalf of the admins to remind everyone here of the Usage 
Guidelines 
.

First and foremost - please report to adm...@nanog.org 
 a concern about violation of the guidelines. Using 
the list to argue about violations is not appropriate. 

Secondly - there have been entirely too many messages in this thread that are 
in violation of guideline number 6, specifically with comments that are 
defamatory, abusive, or lack respect for other participants. 

Finally - the NANOG mail list is not the place to conduct a trial. (See 
guidelines number 8.)

Should you have any questions/concerns about this reminder, please send a 
message to adm...@nanog.org  

Valerie Wittkop
Program Director
vwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org
NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA
ASN 19230

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business 
> model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy. If the 
> community doesn’t like that fact, there is a process to change the policies. 
> Terminating a member based on rules which don’t actually exist, on the other 
> hand sets a very dangerous and corrupt precedent and is a threat to the trust 
> we all want to have in the RIR system.

I have no problem with business models I don't like, I just don't do
business with companies that use those. But this particular scumbag
went far beyond that. The net is a living organism, with an immune
system as well; if T-cells and lymphocytes are unable to deal with a
threat, natural killers come along.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business 
model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy.


And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity.

But hey, you have to eat.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


This is neither a fair nor accurate portrayal of the situation. Further, by 
acting as it had, AFRINIC was the one which tried to suffocate CI first.


Yeah... look ma, he started it...



You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business 
model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy. If the 
community doesn’t like that fact, there is a process to change the policies. 
Terminating a member based on rules which don’t actually exist, on the other 
hand sets a very dangerous and corrupt precedent and is a threat to the trust 
we all want to have in the RIR system.


AFRINIC were stopped from revoking the space. End of. Move on to the 
next thing that does not spite your face.


But alas, the next thing - as you rightly say, to fix this via policy or 
some other consensus-based method - is not possible because the very 
organization for which the policies must be designed isn't sure if it 
will be working the next minute.


The logic is sound.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 06:30, Rubens Kuhl  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:39 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  
> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
 On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan  wrote:
>>> 
 On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>>> 
 It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
 instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
 vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
 who are not even a party to this whole dispute.
>>> 
>>> The end users are an indirect party.
>>> 
>>> Assume someone were in the business of stealing cars, forging their titles, 
>>> and selling them to innocent third parties. A police officer pulling 
>>> someone over for speeding might compare the VIN on the title to that on the 
>>> car and discover that it was stolen. The stolen property would be returned 
>>> to its owner and the end user purchaser would be out of luck other than 
>>> having recourse against the thief.
>>> 
>>> The same principle applies to someone who innocently accepts counterfeit 
>>> money.
>> 
>> Sure, but that’s not exactly what happened here. There’s a limit to what I 
>> can say, but the already public facts show
>> that:
>> 
>> AFRINIC started this fight by threatening to revoke Cloud Innovations 
>> address space.
>> 
>> Cloud Innovation is disputing this revocation on the basis that it has not 
>> violated the RSA, CPM, or Bylaws as they are written.
>> 
>> AFRINIC has a history of making up process as they go along and violating 
>> their own rules whenever it suits them.
> 
> Are you saying that there was no AFRINIC policy at allocation time
> that prevented usage outside Africa ?

Not only then, but now as well. The only such policy in the CPM is enshrined 
within the soft landing policy and applies only to registrations made after 
exhaustion phase 1 started. 

>> AFRINIC has violated court orders and acted in bad faith at virtually every 
>> opportunity in this process.
> 
> Nope, see Tom's message right before this one.

The court ordered AFRINIC to reinstate cloud innovation on the 13th. They 
deliberately delayed until the 15th hoping to win a hearing that morning. They 
did not get what they wanted, instead being admonished by the judge.

>> As such, I think vigilante action and/or trying this case here on NANOG is 
>> probably not the best idea. I realize it’s easy to sympathize with John and 
>> he puts forth a good story, but there is more to the story than what John 
>> has represented here.
> 
> It's not just John as you have seen by now. And besides the case
> merits, the main issue is CI trying to win by suffocation. And that's
> why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next scumbag
> doesn't try the same trick with someone else.

This is neither a fair nor accurate portrayal of the situation. Further, by 
acting as it had, AFRINIC was the one which tried to suffocate CI first.

You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business 
model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy. If the 
community doesn’t like that fact, there is a process to change the policies. 
Terminating a member based on rules which don’t actually exist, on the other 
hand sets a very dangerous and corrupt precedent and is a threat to the trust 
we all want to have in the RIR system. 

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:39 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> >
> > On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> >
> >> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
> >> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
> >> vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
> >> who are not even a party to this whole dispute.
> >
> > The end users are an indirect party.
> >
> > Assume someone were in the business of stealing cars, forging their titles, 
> > and selling them to innocent third parties. A police officer pulling 
> > someone over for speeding might compare the VIN on the title to that on the 
> > car and discover that it was stolen. The stolen property would be returned 
> > to its owner and the end user purchaser would be out of luck other than 
> > having recourse against the thief.
> >
> > The same principle applies to someone who innocently accepts counterfeit 
> > money.
>
> Sure, but that’s not exactly what happened here. There’s a limit to what I 
> can say, but the already public facts show
> that:
>
> AFRINIC started this fight by threatening to revoke Cloud Innovations address 
> space.
>
> Cloud Innovation is disputing this revocation on the basis that it has not 
> violated the RSA, CPM, or Bylaws as they are written.
>
> AFRINIC has a history of making up process as they go along and violating 
> their own rules whenever it suits them.

Are you saying that there was no AFRINIC policy at allocation time
that prevented usage outside Africa ?


> AFRINIC has violated court orders and acted in bad faith at virtually every 
> opportunity in this process.

Nope, see Tom's message right before this one.

> As such, I think vigilante action and/or trying this case here on NANOG is 
> probably not the best idea. I realize it’s easy to sympathize with John and 
> he puts forth a good story, but there is more to the story than what John has 
> represented here.

It's not just John as you have seen by now. And besides the case
merits, the main issue is CI trying to win by suffocation. And that's
why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next scumbag
doesn't try the same trick with someone else.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher]

>
>  It sounds like
> the whole situation with the asset freeze could have been avoided had
> AfriNIC not engaged in contempt of court to start with; surely having
> more contempt of court is not the solution here, now is it?
>

I'm sorry, in what universe is discussing the situation on a mailing list
contempt of the Mauritian courts? Please.

Also, your facts are incorrect.
- CI filed for an injunction to prevent AFRINIC from reclaiming the IPs in
question.
- AFRINIC was warned by the courts, but did comply with said injunction on
July 15th.

At that point, the dispute over AFRINIC's policy enforcement action can,
and should, have been handled in the courts. If this is as far as it went
until the matter was settled in court, I think most all would agree there's
not much of an issue/

But what happened next?

https://cloudinnovation.org/press-release.html#Attachment-C

CI filed an AFFIDAVIT alleging monetary damage allowing them to garnish
AFRINIC's assets. An AFFIDAVIT. That's it. It begs an interesting question;
how was CI harmed to the tune of $50M USD when , at that point:
- AFRINIC was enjoined from terminating CI's membership
- AFRINIC was enjoined from reclaiming the IP resources assigned to CI

It likely goes to the heart of what we SHOULD care about; CI most likely
claimed that the IP blocks were their 'property' and worth $50M, even
though the matter of 'is an IP allocation property' is not settled law. We
all know that the courts are often far behind technology, so this isn't
surprising.

By taking this action, CI is clearly trying to kneecap AFRINIC from being
able to properly defend itself in court. Again, we should all care about
this, because if it becomes legal precedent that 'IP allocations are
property of the assignee' , an RIR attempt to reclaim them becomes a much
more complex issue that could have wide ranging impact to the system at
large,

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:51 PM Constantine A. Murenin 
wrote:

> On 29/08/2021, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> > On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> >
> >> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
> >> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
> >> vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
> >> who are not even a party to this whole dispute.
> >
> > The end users are an indirect party.
> >
> > Assume someone were in the business of stealing cars, forging their
> > titles, and selling them to innocent third parties. A police officer
> > pulling someone over for speeding might compare the VIN on the title to
> > that on the car and discover that it was stolen. The stolen property
> > would be returned to its owner and the end user purchaser would be out
> > of luck other than having recourse against the thief.
> >
> > The same principle applies to someone who innocently accepts counterfeit
> > money.
> >
> > If the Internet community as a whole or significant players therein were
> > to treat these number resources as stolen property fraudulently obtained
> > under false pretenses and stop routing those netblocks, the end users
> > would indeed suffer just like the person who unwittingly bought a stolen
> > car or accepted a counterfeit bill. The end user would pursue recourse
> > against the party who rented or sold the fraudulently obtained netblocks
> > and the business model of obtaining number resources under false
> > pretenses solely to rent or resell at a profit would collapse.
>
> But it is up to the courts to decide whether or not the property was
> obtained under false pretences.
>
> The situation is more akin to buying a car from an authorised dealer,
> and then the dealer having a dispute with the manufacturer, or the
> manufacturer having a dispute with a supplier.  A business dispute
> doesn't suddenly make the item you have the title for to be stolen
> property, now does it?
>
> What you're advocating for is hiring a hitman to take care of the
> problem outside of the justice system, to take things by force which
> are not yours for the taking, just because you don't like the business
> authorised dealers are in.  Please don't; the courts are already
> looking into the business dispute.  Plus, you keep ignoring the fact
> that everyone else is already reselling IP address space from other
> RIRs, why is Cloud Innovation Ltd and AfriNIC space resale suddenly
> treated differently here?  Please have some respect for the Mauritian
> court that's already handling this business dispute.  It sounds like
> the whole situation with the asset freeze could have been avoided had
> AfriNIC not engaged in contempt of court to start with; surely having
> more contempt of court is not the solution here, now is it?
>
> C.
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/30/21 08:39, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:


As such, I think vigilante action and/or trying this case here on NANOG is 
probably not the best idea.


Nor is jeopardizing, and probably ruining, the livelihoods of people who 
have families at home to feed, in a time when jobs are scarce and dwindling.


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 29, 2021, at 17:41 , Masataka Ohta  
> wrote:
> 
> John Levine wrote:
> 
>> I would be astonished if ICANN had a position. For one thing, they
>> have no provision for dealing with competing IP registries since the
>> issue has never come up
> 
> As
> 
>   ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional
>   Internet Registries
>   https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en
>   2) The new RIR must demonstrate that it has the broad
>   support of the LIRs (ISP community) in the proposed region
> 
> if overwhelming majority, which means there is no competition,
> of LIRs in AfriNIC region request to abandon AfriNIC and to
> have an alternate RIR, ICANN should honor the request.

ICANN _MIGHT_ be able (under ICP-2) to honor the request to accredit
a new RIR if one is created. ICANN has no authority under ICP-2 to do
anything about any RIR once it is accredited. There is no process for
revoking an RIR’s accreditation and there is no mechanism for any entity
to do so that I am aware of.

>> For another, they are extremely allergic to
>> anything that might even possibly involve them in a lawsuit.
> ICANN was established to protect governance structure (including
> RIRs, of course) of the Internet free from government (especially
> USG) interventions. As such, ICANN is expected to work to isolate
> African RIR operations from existing lawsuit.

I think you have that somewhat wrong. Regardless of what you or anyone
else may think ICANN was established for, the simple reality is that ICANN’s
only ability to engage on any of this is that granted to it by the various IANA
functions contracts from the empowered communities (IETF, NRO/ASO/RIRs,
and various Domain-Related organizations). (No, I don’t have all the exact
details spelled out correctly here, it’s almost impossible to identify them).

ICANN does not have any ability to isolate African RIR operations from an
existing lawsuit. If you think I’m wrong, please identify the authority and
mechanism by which they could possibly do so.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> 
> On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
> 
>> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
>> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
>> vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
>> who are not even a party to this whole dispute.
> 
> The end users are an indirect party.
> 
> Assume someone were in the business of stealing cars, forging their titles, 
> and selling them to innocent third parties. A police officer pulling someone 
> over for speeding might compare the VIN on the title to that on the car and 
> discover that it was stolen. The stolen property would be returned to its 
> owner and the end user purchaser would be out of luck other than having 
> recourse against the thief.
> 
> The same principle applies to someone who innocently accepts counterfeit 
> money.

Sure, but that’s not exactly what happened here. There’s a limit to what I can 
say, but the already public facts show
that:

AFRINIC started this fight by threatening to revoke Cloud Innovations address 
space.

Cloud Innovation is disputing this revocation on the basis that it has not 
violated the RSA, CPM, or Bylaws as they are written.

AFRINIC has a history of making up process as they go along and violating their 
own rules whenever it suits them.

AFRINIC has violated court orders and acted in bad faith at virtually every 
opportunity in this process.

As such, I think vigilante action and/or trying this case here on NANOG is 
probably not the best idea. I realize it’s easy to sympathize with John and he 
puts forth a good story, but there is more to the story than what John has 
represented here.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Constantine A. Murenin]

On 29/08/2021, Jay Hennigan  wrote:
> On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
>> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
>> vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
>> who are not even a party to this whole dispute.
>
> The end users are an indirect party.
>
> Assume someone were in the business of stealing cars, forging their
> titles, and selling them to innocent third parties. A police officer
> pulling someone over for speeding might compare the VIN on the title to
> that on the car and discover that it was stolen. The stolen property
> would be returned to its owner and the end user purchaser would be out
> of luck other than having recourse against the thief.
>
> The same principle applies to someone who innocently accepts counterfeit
> money.
>
> If the Internet community as a whole or significant players therein were
> to treat these number resources as stolen property fraudulently obtained
> under false pretenses and stop routing those netblocks, the end users
> would indeed suffer just like the person who unwittingly bought a stolen
> car or accepted a counterfeit bill. The end user would pursue recourse
> against the party who rented or sold the fraudulently obtained netblocks
> and the business model of obtaining number resources under false
> pretenses solely to rent or resell at a profit would collapse.

But it is up to the courts to decide whether or not the property was
obtained under false pretences.

The situation is more akin to buying a car from an authorised dealer,
and then the dealer having a dispute with the manufacturer, or the
manufacturer having a dispute with a supplier.  A business dispute
doesn't suddenly make the item you have the title for to be stolen
property, now does it?

What you're advocating for is hiring a hitman to take care of the
problem outside of the justice system, to take things by force which
are not yours for the taking, just because you don't like the business
authorised dealers are in.  Please don't; the courts are already
looking into the business dispute.  Plus, you keep ignoring the fact
that everyone else is already reselling IP address space from other
RIRs, why is Cloud Innovation Ltd and AfriNIC space resale suddenly
treated differently here?  Please have some respect for the Mauritian
court that's already handling this business dispute.  It sounds like
the whole situation with the asset freeze could have been avoided had
AfriNIC not engaged in contempt of court to start with; surely having
more contempt of court is not the solution here, now is it?

C.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 21:13 Rubens Kuhl  wrote:

> > %s/isolate/move/g functions. That equates to a leadership change. It may
> be too soon to suggest that ICANN has any role other than risk analysis and
> coordination of mitigation. I'm not even certain if that's their role
> seeing how complicated the relationships between the RIR's and ICANN is.
> I've seen good summaries including John Currans and Milton Muellers. I've
> been leaning towards Milton's view. He didn't pardon Afrinic, but he also
> didn't suggest it's time to fold up shop there.
> >
> > A fight over crumbs: The Afrinic Crisis
> >
> >
> https://www.internetgovernance.org/2021/08/19/a-fight-over-crumbs-the-afrinic-crisis/
>
> The problem with Milton's POV is that he is willing to pick and choose
> which AfriNIC policies he likes and which he doesn't; this is not how
> it works.
> That community decided the policies, and it's our job in the other
> regions to make sure that scum bags like the one currently trying to
> suffocate AfriNIC fail miserably.
>


Fair enough, but his TL;DR appears fair and he underscored the risk of  the
matter to the entire RIR system: government intervention.


Warm regards,

-M<

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl]

> %s/isolate/move/g functions. That equates to a leadership change. It may be 
> too soon to suggest that ICANN has any role other than risk analysis and 
> coordination of mitigation. I'm not even certain if that's their role seeing 
> how complicated the relationships between the RIR's and ICANN is.  I've seen 
> good summaries including John Currans and Milton Muellers. I've been leaning 
> towards Milton's view. He didn't pardon Afrinic, but he also didn't suggest 
> it's time to fold up shop there.
>
> A fight over crumbs: The Afrinic Crisis
>
> https://www.internetgovernance.org/2021/08/19/a-fight-over-crumbs-the-afrinic-crisis/

The problem with Milton's POV is that he is willing to pick and choose
which AfriNIC policies he likes and which he doesn't; this is not how
it works.
That community decided the policies, and it's our job in the other
regions to make sure that scum bags like the one currently trying to
suffocate AfriNIC fail miserably.


Rubens

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 8:44 PM Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

[ clip]

As
>
> ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional
> Internet Registries
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en
> 2) The new RIR must demonstrate that it has the broad
> support of the LIRs (ISP community) in the proposed region
>
> if overwhelming majority, which means there is no competition,
> of LIRs in AfriNIC region request to abandon AfriNIC and to
> have an alternate RIR, ICANN should honor the request.
>
> > For another, they are extremely allergic to
> > anything that might even possibly involve them in a lawsuit.
> ICANN was established to protect governance structure (including
> RIRs, of course) of the Internet free from government (especially
> USG) interventions. As such, ICANN is expected to work to isolate
> African RIR operations from existing lawsuit.
>
>
%s/isolate/move/g functions. That equates to a leadership change. It may be
too soon to suggest that ICANN has any role other than risk analysis and
coordination of mitigation. I'm not even certain if that's their role
seeing how complicated the relationships between the RIR's and ICANN is.
I've seen good summaries including John Currans and Milton Muellers. I've
been leaning towards Milton's view. He didn't pardon Afrinic, but he also
didn't suggest it's time to fold up shop there.

A fight over crumbs: The Afrinic Crisis

https://www.internetgovernance.org/2021/08/19/a-fight-over-crumbs-the-afrinic-crisis/



Warm regards,

-M<

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Masataka Ohta]

John Levine wrote:


I would be astonished if ICANN had a position. For one thing, they
have no provision for dealing with competing IP registries since the
issue has never come up


As

ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional
Internet Registries
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en
2) The new RIR must demonstrate that it has the broad
support of the LIRs (ISP community) in the proposed region

if overwhelming majority, which means there is no competition,
of LIRs in AfriNIC region request to abandon AfriNIC and to
have an alternate RIR, ICANN should honor the request.


For another, they are extremely allergic to
anything that might even possibly involve them in a lawsuit.

ICANN was established to protect governance structure (including
RIRs, of course) of the Internet free from government (especially
USG) interventions. As such, ICANN is expected to work to isolate
African RIR operations from existing lawsuit.

Masataka Ohta

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Jay Hennigan]

On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:


It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
who are not even a party to this whole dispute.


The end users are an indirect party.

Assume someone were in the business of stealing cars, forging their 
titles, and selling them to innocent third parties. A police officer 
pulling someone over for speeding might compare the VIN on the title to 
that on the car and discover that it was stolen. The stolen property 
would be returned to its owner and the end user purchaser would be out 
of luck other than having recourse against the thief.


The same principle applies to someone who innocently accepts counterfeit 
money.


If the Internet community as a whole or significant players therein were 
to treat these number resources as stolen property fraudulently obtained 
under false pretenses and stop routing those netblocks, the end users 
would indeed suffer just like the person who unwittingly bought a stolen 
car or accepted a counterfeit bill. The end user would pursue recourse 
against the party who rented or sold the fraudulently obtained netblocks 
and the business model of obtaining number resources under false 
pretenses solely to rent or resell at a profit would collapse.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Constantine A. Murenin]

This whole discussion reminds me of the situation the security and
vulnerability researchers often face from the corporate overlords.

Why is noone talking about the real issue?

Namely, how could a RIR be so easily shutdown by the courts with the
jurisdiction?

Why is this mailing list used to solicit donations for presumably the
bigger party, which has evidently lost their day in court so far?
How's that within NANOG AUP?

Why are we blaming the party who has identified the faults of the
system, and used these faults to some perceived advantage?  Everyone
knows that everyone else has been engaged in IP address arbitrage for
a while anyways, how's this instance all that different?  Just because
it involves AfriNIC presumably many have ignored until now?  Just
because the smaller party has hired a good lawyer and has had a
successful day in court so far?

Why is this mailing list used to advocate interruption and termination
of service by the cloud providers for unsuspecting third-parties?

How convenient that we have courts on our side "usually", yet in this
case they aren't, but that's okay, because the Mauritian courts must
not be the good ones!  Let's just revert to the vigilante system and
prevent third-parties not to the dispute from receiving the service
just because a "bad guy" happens to be an intermediary facilitator!

Don't blame the player, blame the game.  I read all these messages in
this thread, plus John Curran's 2021-08-27 statement at teamarin.net,
and I'm not convinced that the whole crowd going against a single
player, who has law on their side so far, is a fair game here.  Even
more ironic is that John alleges CI couldn't justify an ARIN
allocation because "business activities outside of the ARIN service
region", only to go on and complain in the very next paragraph about
the announcement of the AfriNIC address space from within the United
States (i.e., actual proof of use within ARIN service region).

It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
who are not even a party to this whole dispute.

C.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/29/21 19:03, Jay Hennigan wrote:


Technically, four plus six


Bigger, is better.

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Jay Hennigan]

On 8/29/21 05:58, Mark Tinka wrote:


Did you know... Africa runs IPv10...


Technically, four plus six

--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[John Levine]

It appears that Mehmet Akcin  said:
>
>I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this?

I would be astonished if ICANN had a position. For one thing, they
have no provision for dealing with competing IP registries since the
issue has never come up and, until this strange situation, seemed
vanishingly unlikely. For another, they are extremely allergic to
anything that might even possibly involve them in a lawsuit.

R's,
John

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/29/21 09:33, Mike Hale wrote:


I feel like some IP troll literally being able to shutter a regional
registrar as part of a lawsuit should be a much bigger deal on this
group...


Did you know... Africa runs IPv10...

Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mark Tinka]

On 8/28/21 20:10, Jay Hennigan wrote:



All it would take is for one 800-pound gorilla to do so. Cloud 
Innovations would implode should Google, Microsoft, or Amazon drop all 
traffic from those blocks.


This!

CI are pushing their case relying on the rest of the Internet community 
to keep doing "the right thing" by routing/forwarding the IPv4 address 
space in question.


If the Internet community decided that what CI was doing was not in 
keeping with appropriate netizenship, and stopped routing/forwarding 
said IPv4 address space, that would be the end. But too many parties on 
too many sides of the table have some kind of interest in keeping that 
address space routed/forwarded. So while this would quickly create 
useful leverage against CI's actions, I can't see the community coming 
to such consensus quickly.


For me, the irony with what CI are doing is that while they are breaking 
the value of community by running AFRINIC through hell, they still 
expect the very same community to afford them communal decency by still 
routing/forwarding the address space.


It's as if planet Earth is an option, and whoever doesn't like it can 
move to Mars or some such :-\...


Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Noah]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021, 21:25 Mehmet Akcin,  wrote:

> I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this?
>


*4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and
particularly the LIRs*

All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated
equally. The policies and guidelines proposed and implemented by the RIR need
to ensure fair distribution of resources, and impartial treatment of the
members/requestors.

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

Principle #4 of ICP-2 goes to emphasise a very important aspect of Internet
Number Management which is "fair distribution of resources".

>From the context of a party without reasonable Internet Infrastructure,
lacks an ASN, has no IPv6 allocation. Would you call the over 6 million
IPv4 allocations to an entity that does not participate in the Internet
ecosystem itself, fair distribution?

Noah

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Noah]

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 12:33 PM Vincentz Petzholtz <
v.petzho...@syseleven.de> wrote:

> +1 on the "pro" side to keep this topic in focus (even on the NANOG list).
> The community can not accept a situation where someone successfully stale
> a RIR in order to max profit


Considering Cloud Innovation contributes peanuts, literally a few thousand
dollars as a resource member who figured, it's worthwhile operating a
mini-RIR without operating any reasonably Internet Infrastructure anywhere.


> (probably on the expense of the other [local] LIRs).
>

This is actually to the expense of the majority 1800 local LIR's across
AFRICA who since the creation of AFRINIC have contributed to the currently
frozen coffers through annual membership, and majority of who rightfully
operate in Africa and have rightfully continued to support the advancement
of the Internet in Africa for the benefit of the continent in the past 20
years that today, the impact of the Internet and communication has brought
about fundamental change from a socio-economic perspective.

Cheers,
Noah

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Vincentz Petzholtz]

+1 on the "pro" side to keep this topic in focus (even on the NANOG list).
The community can not accept a situation where someone successfully stale a RIR 
in order to max profit (probably on the expense of the other [local] LIRs).

I would very much like seeing updates on this matter here.

imho, regards
Vincentz

> Am 29.08.2021 um 09:33 schrieb Mike Hale :
> 
> I feel like some IP troll literally being able to shutter a regional
> registrar as part of a lawsuit should be a much bigger deal on this
> group...
> 
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 11:49 PM Masataka Ohta
>  wrote:
>> 
>> Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>> 
>>> I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this?
>> 
>> https://afrinic.net/history
>> In April 2005, ICANN accredited AFRINIC as the fifth Regional
>> Internet Registry according to criteria defined in its ICP-2
>> document (criteria for the establishment of regional Internet
>> registries).
>> 
>>Masataka Ohta
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mike Hale]

I feel like some IP troll literally being able to shutter a regional
registrar as part of a lawsuit should be a much bigger deal on this
group...

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 11:49 PM Masataka Ohta
 wrote:
>
> Mehmet Akcin wrote:
>
> > I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this?
>
> https://afrinic.net/history
> In April 2005, ICANN accredited AFRINIC as the fifth Regional
> Internet Registry according to criteria defined in its ICP-2
> document (criteria for the establishment of regional Internet
> registries).
>
> Masataka Ohta



-- 
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Masataka Ohta]

Mehmet Akcin wrote:


I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this?


https://afrinic.net/history
In April 2005, ICANN accredited AFRINIC as the fifth Regional
Internet Registry according to criteria defined in its ICP-2
document (criteria for the establishment of regional Internet
registries).

Masataka Ohta

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Mehmet Akcin]

I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this?

On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 13:32 Masataka Ohta <
mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote:

> Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> >> Then, several years will be lost if we wait Mauritius court
> >> settle the issue.
> >>
> >> A quick fix for the international internet community can be to
> >> abandon AfriNIC and establish, outside of Mauritius, a new entity,
> >> which may employ current AfriNIC employers, recognized by the
> international internet community.
>
> > I think this would be complicated
>
> If ICANN is not yet compromised, it should be simple.
>
> > and that the Mauritius court might take
> > a dim view of the assets fo AFRINIC trying to leave the country in the
> > dead of night to avoid court proceedings.
>
> I said "abandon AfriNIC". So?
>
> Masataka Ohta
>
-- 
Mehmet
+1-424-298-1903

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Jay Hennigan]

On 8/27/21 09:18, Aaron Wendel wrote:
I suppose people who wanted to take a side could also block traffic to 
and from Cloud Innovations IP blocks.


All it would take is for one 800-pound gorilla to do so. Cloud 
Innovations would implode should Google, Microsoft, or Amazon drop all 
traffic from those blocks.


--
Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net
Network Engineering - CCIE #7880
503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Hank Nussbacher]

On 27/08/2021 18:36, Bill Woodcock wrote:

As many of you are aware, AfriNIC is under legal attack by Heng Lu / “Cloud 
Innovation.”

John Curran just posted an excellent summary of the current state of affairs 
here:


https://teamarin.net/2021/08/27/afrinic-and-the-stability-of-the-internet-number-registry-system/

If, like me, you feel like chipping in a little bit of money to help AfriNIC 
make payroll despite Heng having gotten their bank accounts frozen, some of the 
African ISP associations have put together a fund, which you can donate to here:

https://www.tespok.co.ke/?page_id=14001

It’s an unfortunate situation, but the African Internet community has really 
pulled together to defend themselves, and they’ve got a lot less resources than 
most of us do.

-Bill



Why not just use the RIR Joint Stability Fund which was created for 
exactly these situations before asking for donations?


Details here:
https://www.nro.net/accountability/rir-accountability/joint-rir-stability-fund/

Regards,
Hank

Caveat: The views expressed above are solely my own and do not express 
the views or opinions of my employer

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Masataka Ohta]

Owen DeLong wrote:


Then, several years will be lost if we wait Mauritius court
settle the issue.

A quick fix for the international internet community can be to
abandon AfriNIC and establish, outside of Mauritius, a new entity,
which may employ current AfriNIC employers, recognized by the international 
internet community.



I think this would be complicated


If ICANN is not yet compromised, it should be simple.


and that the Mauritius court might take
a dim view of the assets fo AFRINIC trying to leave the country in the
dead of night to avoid court proceedings.


I said "abandon AfriNIC". So?

Masataka Ohta

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Owen DeLong via NANOG]

> On Aug 28, 2021, at 10:02 , Masataka Ohta  
> wrote:
> 
> John Curran wrote:
> 
>> Indeterminate at this time, since a “Freezing Order" issued via ex
>> party hearing doesn’t actually test the strength of the arguments, as
>> the affected party is not present to respond.  It is only when the
>> case for the validation of the order is heard that the strength of
>> the arguments could possibly be assessed.  Note - the full list of
>> cases filed are here > > for reference.

I believe John is referring to the original ex parte order. However, this
ignores that AFRINIC got a hearing on the merits when they sought a
variance to the order. As AFRINIC announced, they did not get the
variance they sought, though the judge did grant them access to some
limited funds on a one time exceptional basis. Therefore, the implication
that the merits have not been evaluated is not entirely true.

> Then, several years will be lost if we wait Mauritius court
> settle the issue.
> 
> A quick fix for the international internet community can be to
> abandon AfriNIC and establish, outside of Mauritius, a new entity,
> which may employ current AfriNIC employers, recognized by the international 
> internet community.

I think this would be complicated and that the Mauritius court might take
a dim view of the assets fo AFRINIC trying to leave the country in the
dead of night to avoid court proceedings.

Owen

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher]

>
> Maybe some will, but they'd be better off selling them before the RIRs
> decide to expand their scope and start mass reclaiming for profit.
>

I'm sorry, what?

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 9:36 PM Laszlo Hanyecz  wrote:

>
> On 2021-08-28 00:58, Tom Beecher wrote:
>
> Fundamentally I think everyone should care about this situation. As I read
> it, it breaks down as :
>
> - AFRINIC and Cloud Innovation are engaged in a dispute over number
> assignment policies.
> - AFRINIC invokes the clause that they are reclaiming the space in
> question.
> - Cloud Innovation files for garnishment, stating that AFRINIG is 'taking'
> IP addresses worth millions of dollars, therefore it is entitled to damages.
> - The courts grant the garnishment, although such garnishment is at Cloud
> Innovation's risk. ( Meaning if they are challenged and lose, they are on
> the hook for damages for taking the action.)
> - However, in the process, since Cloud Innovation has claimed enough
> damages to freeze all of AFRINIC's accounts, they now have no money
> accessible to protect their legal rights on the IP address, or defend
> themselves against the damaged seizure.
>
> As Mr. Curran put forth a week ago, 'property rights' of IP allocations
> are an unsettled area. What happens if this holds up that the court there
> rules that you 'own' the IPs assigned to you from an RIR until you give
> them back? That sure creates a mess with any RIR views that allocations as
> simply entries in a database.
>
>
> This thing about entries in a database seems to be used when it's
> convenient to downplay the market value and operational importance of IP
> addresses.  Even the people leading the crusade against Cloud Innovation in
> this thread are claiming that it's about millions of addresses for dramatic
> effect.  This kind of dispute is going to happen more as the value of
> addresses goes up and the RIRs realize what a gold mine they have by
> shaking down spammers and other unpopular resource holders.  I imagine some
> of the operators on this list have resources they could return if they
> wanted to.  Maybe some will, but they'd be better off selling them before
> the RIRs decide to expand their scope and start mass reclaiming for
> profit.  Hopefully RPKI, AS0, etc. won't be abused to reclaim resources
> just because they're valuable.
>
> How long would it take before some clown in a boardroom decides that want
> to latch onto that ruling and do something stupid to 'maximize shareholder
> value' and there's an expensive legal brawl over that? How long before
> people start popping up and laying claim as the 'rightful owner' of
> addresses from the origin days? Do we really want to see RIRs and our
> companies dealing with BS lawsuits for things like this? It only has to
> work once...
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 11:37 AM Bill Woodcock  wrote:
>
>> As many of you are aware, AfriNIC is under legal attack by Heng Lu /
>> “Cloud Innovation.”
>>
>> John Curran just posted an excellent summary of the current state of
>> affairs here:
>>
>>
>> https://teamarin.net/2021/08/27/afrinic-and-the-stability-of-the-internet-number-registry-system/
>>
>> If, like me, you feel like chipping in a little bit of money to help
>> AfriNIC make payroll despite Heng having gotten their bank accounts frozen,
>> some of the African ISP associations have put together a fund, which you
>> can donate to here:
>>
>>https://www.tespok.co.ke/?page_id=14001
>>
>> It’s an unfortunate situation, but the African Internet community has
>> really pulled together to defend themselves, and they’ve got a lot less
>> resources than most of us do.
>>
>>-Bill
>>
>
>

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Masataka Ohta]

John Curran wrote:


Indeterminate at this time, since a “Freezing Order" issued via ex
party hearing doesn’t actually test the strength of the arguments, as
the affected party is not present to respond.  It is only when the
case for the validation of the order is heard that the strength of
the arguments could possibly be assessed.  Note - the full list of
cases filed are here > for reference.


Then, several years will be lost if we wait Mauritius court
settle the issue.

A quick fix for the international internet community can be to
abandon AfriNIC and establish, outside of Mauritius, a new entity,
which may employ current AfriNIC employers, recognized by the  
international internet community.


Masataka Ohta

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Laszlo Hanyecz]

On 2021-08-28 00:58, Tom Beecher wrote:
Fundamentally I think everyone should care about this situation. As I 
read it, it breaks down as :


- AFRINIC and Cloud Innovation are engaged in a dispute over number 
assignment policies.
- AFRINIC invokes the clause that they are reclaiming the space in 
question.
- Cloud Innovation files for garnishment, stating that AFRINIG is 
'taking' IP addresses worth millions of dollars, therefore it is 
entitled to damages.
- The courts grant the garnishment, although such garnishment is at 
Cloud Innovation's risk. ( Meaning if they are challenged and lose, 
they are on the hook for damages for taking the action.)
- However, in the process, since Cloud Innovation has claimed enough 
damages to freeze all of AFRINIC's accounts, they now have no money 
accessible to protect their legal rights on the IP address, or defend 
themselves against the damaged seizure.


As Mr. Curran put forth a week ago, 'property rights' of IP 
allocations are an unsettled area. What happens if this holds up that 
the court there rules that you 'own' the IPs assigned to you from an 
RIR until you give them back? That sure creates a mess with any RIR 
views that allocations as simply entries in a database.


This thing about entries in a database seems to be used when it's 
convenient to downplay the market value and operational importance of IP 
addresses.  Even the people leading the crusade against Cloud Innovation 
in this thread are claiming that it's about millions of addresses for 
dramatic effect.  This kind of dispute is going to happen more as the 
value of addresses goes up and the RIRs realize what a gold mine they 
have by shaking down spammers and other unpopular resource holders.  I 
imagine some of the operators on this list have resources they could 
return if they wanted to.  Maybe some will, but they'd be better off 
selling them before the RIRs decide to expand their scope and start mass 
reclaiming for profit. Hopefully RPKI, AS0, etc. won't be abused to 
reclaim resources just because they're valuable.


How long would it take before some clown in a boardroom decides that 
want to latch onto that ruling and do something stupid to 'maximize 
shareholder value' and there's an expensive legal brawl over that? How 
long before people start popping up and laying claim as the 'rightful 
owner' of addresses from the origin days? Do we really want to see 
RIRs and our companies dealing with BS lawsuits for things like this? 
It only has to work once...






On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 11:37 AM Bill Woodcock > wrote:


As many of you are aware, AfriNIC is under legal attack by Heng Lu
/ “Cloud Innovation.”

John Curran just posted an excellent summary of the current state
of affairs here:


https://teamarin.net/2021/08/27/afrinic-and-the-stability-of-the-internet-number-registry-system/



If, like me, you feel like chipping in a little bit of money to
help AfriNIC make payroll despite Heng having gotten their bank
accounts frozen, some of the African ISP associations have put
together a fund, which you can donate to here:

https://www.tespok.co.ke/?page_id=14001


It’s an unfortunate situation, but the African Internet community
has really pulled together to defend themselves, and they’ve got a
lot less resources than most of us do.

                               -Bill