I am not replying to this news paper, nor I have time to read it all. I will also ask you to remember your statement here, ( the resource holder are pushing for a transfer policy) i will also prove you wrong!
On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:40 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2022, at 12:00 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng> wrote: > > Owen, > for the sake of time, I will quote and reply and highlighted in red from > your ext > > *quote: ( Because many resource holders wish to be able to sell their > underutilized resources in a worldwide secondary market. ) *you used the > term sell, in another reply you denied selling, anyway whatever the term > is, this should be governed by the rir, there should be an application with > the knowledge of the rir and justification of the use, just like when you > apply to RIR directly, not an unmonitored process. Let me remind us here of > the difference between inter-rir and LIR to another member. this step was > taken by many rir "inter rir transfer" who own majority of the IPV4, and to > regulate the transfers and continue to monitor the ipv4, closing the door > on black and grey market. let me remind us also that such cases peculiar to > need and in cases of bankruptcy or whatever reason the company might be > dissolved. Also let me remind us all the ip resources are assigned "not > sold" to lir based on NEED, justified need. > > > Neither Larus nor Cloud Innovation is selling resources received from > AFRINIC… I stated that many other resource holders wish to do so and that > is one of the reasons that those resource holders are pushing for a > transfer policy. > > This is not inconsistent, it is your inability to differentiate and/or > your failure to look past your efforts to ascribe the most sinister > possible motives to every statement I make. > > The RIR doesn’t govern anything. The community governs the RIR and the RIR > is supposed to administer the registry according to the policies set by the > community and according to its bylaws which are controlled by the > membership of the RIR. > > Perhaps it is this fundamental misunderstanding of who is specifically > supposed to be empowered in the governance of the internet and as a result > the RIRs that is driving some of your other misstatements. > > For clarity: > > ICANN/PTI in its role performing the IANA operates the central registry > for IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and ASNs (among other things). It does > so according to global policies which are set by the RIRs acting in concert > through the Address Supporting Organization, specifically the ASO AC, which > is synonymous with the NRO NC. > > Each RIR receives resources from the IANA central registry according to > its justified need and pursuant to those policies mentioned above. > > Each RIR distributes those resources to its subscribers (members or not, > depending on the RIR’s specific policies) according to the policies set in > the RIR by its community and according to the bylaws of the RIR set by its > members. > > Each RIR is expected to operate within the policies created by its > membership and according to its bylaws. When an RIR fails to do so, it > becomes far more dangerous than is expected. > > Some RIR subscribers are LIRs (Local Internet Registries). LIRs provide > address space to their customers (usually for a fee) whether in > relationship with connectivity services or as a separate product. > > Some RIR subscribers are end users and simply use the address space they > receive from the RIR directly. > > Every RIR except AFRINIC has an inter-RIR transfer policy at this point. > Yes, the recipient needs to show need in the case of an inter-RIR transfer. > > There are many different reasons organizations want to be able to engage > in inter-RIR transfers and I enumerated several of them. You chose to focus > on a single one because that is the one you hope to be able to twist into > something sinister. > > quote: ( *.... RIPE-NCC should be going after a number of companies who > are operating in Africa using primarily RIPE-NCC issued space. Note that > this is not an issue and nobody has ever claimed it to be an issue. This > allegation that AFRINIC addresses are restricted to Africa is a fiction > that has only ever been promulgated in the context of AFRINIC and has never > received serious attention in any other RIR.) *Answer: AfriNIC got the > smallest portion of ipv4 and it is called AFRICAN etc... enforcing a policy > "which does not exist as of now" to transfer inter RIR or sell will be > suicide to the continent's digital future as the world is at the scarcity > of IPV4, my view. Rather, Auditing the existing delegations and retrieval > is what is supposed to happen. in the meantime, the companies you are > referring to are companies of legitimate presence, not ip brokers and have > ASNs. What is applicable to RIPE or ARIN is not necessarily applicable to > AfriNIC, they can enforce any policy and afrinic is at liberty to do such, > with the view of the little ip resources available and the big future of > Africa. > > > If you are opposed to an inter-RIR transfer policy, then so be it. That > has little or nothing to do with whether or not existing addresses > registered to an organization by AFRINIC are allowed to be used outside of > AFRICA or not. > > However, the policy that does exist now clearly does allow AFRINIC > addresses to be utilized out of region virtually without restriction. A > plain text reading of section 6 of the bylaws makes this quite clear. A > plain text reading of the CPM finds only one place where this is > contradicted and it applies ONLY to addresses issued after the activation > of the Soft Landing policy. > > If you want to conduct legitimate audits, feel free. If you wish to abide > by the legitimate outcome of those audits when they show legitimate > utilization according to the CPM, the RSA, and the bylaws, I’ll fully > support that. However, use out of region does not violate any of the terms > in any of those documents unless the addresses were issued to the > organization after the activation of the soft landing policy. > > AFRINIC is free to enforce any policy which has been adopted by the > community and ratified by the board. There is no policy restricting the > location of utilization of addresses which meets that test at this time. > > *quote: (AFRINIC has not won or last any cases yet regarding the > geographical restriction of IP Utilization. This is more misinformation > from you.)* I did not make any statement about winning on geographical > grounds, why are you putting words in my mouth that I did not say? who is > misinforming now? > > > You stated: "AfriNic acted according to the Bylaw and court, allow me here > to refresh your memory, if the ipv4 is not restricted to ise in Africa then > why the proposals for inter RIR transfer and Other proposals from the > Meeting which are available online? If that is allowed then AfriNic shouod > have lost all cases. What is happening in Mauritius is an abuse of the > Judicial System. “ > > Your claim is that AFRINIC should have already lost all cases on > geographic basis if my statement was true. I pointed out that AFRINIC has > neither lost nor won because the cases that relate to this matter have not > yet concluded. I did not put words in your mouth, I responded to what you > actually said. > > > quote : (....soft landing) Soft landing was very good in other rir if you > really wish to compare, refer to ARIN website and see how soft landing was > easy. > > > ARIN never passed a soft landing policy and it worked out quite well > there, IMHO. > > However, the only mention I have made regarding soft landing in any of > these statements is to mention that it is the only policy with geographical > restrictions on utilization codified in the policy. I’ve also pointed out > that said policy does not apply to any addresses issued to Cloud Innovation. > > > *quote : ( I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or > client. This statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the > list, and is, frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence.)* did i > say you? did i point any finger to you? why are you always whining and > dtrying to get in the center of attention as if the whole world is > revolving because of you and around you? I said : *Anyone *can convince > *himself > with any lie* and convince the minions involved in this issue who have > been (mislead) and unfortunately (paid to spread lie), did you see you or > me or owen or amin in this statement? > > > You made the following direct statement in a message sent directly to me > as well as an open list: > "Anyone can convince himself with any lie and convince the minions > involved in this issue who have been (mislead) and unfortunately (paid to > spread lie)” > > In context, it is quite clear you were intending to level this as a direct > accusation towards me. Your use of weasel words and attempted evasions > notwithstanding, at least I have the courage to own what I say and take > responsibility for it. > > > *quote: ( I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client. > This statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and > is, frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence. ) *Again: Did I say > you published any video? did I point any finger at you? did I mention you? > > > You said: "When someone accuses an organization of corruption, he should > provide evidence, not just a video, especially if he/she/it and under the > table corrupting the members to buy Votes.” > > You said this in an email directed to me and copied to an open list. > > So in effect, yes, you did claim I published a video, you did point a > finger presumably at me, and by having my name as the target of your email, > yes, you did mention me for all practical purposes. > > My email was about PTA, our legal team communicated with them on their > website in Pakistan and the Website of the Embassy in Mauritius and through > a Letter TO THE embassy here, and will send further to the > embassies/commission/high commission/consulate (if any) in all African > Region, so may I understand what involved you here? Are you from Pakistan > or the spokesperson of PTA? > > > In terms of the subsequent emails in this discussion, you put my name in > the To: field of your email. If you didn’t intend to involve me, why did > you do so? > In terms of the original message, you made a public comment about the > letter being sent on behalf of a “fraudulent and misleading organization”, > so I felt obliged to point out your own misleading information that you > have attempted to promulgate in this same forum and with your own misguided > and misleading video. > > I will note, that you did not address the following component of my > previous message: > > You wrote: > > If you think the misquotes you sent before are convincing, maybe to your > good self, but not to me and i did not reply as I usualy say what i want > and walk, reason being I have no time to waste on endless discussions as > the 2nd party is very sure is justifying a wrong cause. > > > To which I responded: > > What misquote, exactly? Please point to where my quote was in error and be > specific. > > I literally copied and pasted the text of section 6 of the bylaws. > > > You carefully avoided answering this… Is it perhaps because you have no > answer here? You could not find an actual misquote? > > I find three messages into this conversation that this statement: "I have > no time to waste on endless discussions as the 2nd party is very sure is > justifying a wrong cause.” > is truly telling as apparently I am not such a second party and therefore > perhaps you are admitting by your actions that I do not actually have a > wrong cause. If so, this is progress. > > Owen > > > > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 6:31 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jun 15, 2022, at 09:22 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng> wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> Don’t rush, all in good time. >> >> Yes Misleading the public on claims and claims and claims with no single >> piece of evidence! >> >> AfriNic acted according to the Bylaw and court, allow me here to refresh >> your memory, if the ipv4 is not restricted to ise in Africa then why the >> proposals for inter RIR transfer and Other proposals from the Meeting which >> are available online? If that is allowed then AfriNic shouod have lost all >> cases. What is happening in Mauritius is an abuse of the Judicial System. >> >> >> *Because many resource holders wish to be able to sell their >>> underutilized resources in a worldwide secondary market.* Other >>> companies wish to be able to obtain addresses from that same market once >>> the artificially constrained AFRINIC free pool is exhausted. Because some >>> companies would prefer to consolidate their global resources from multiple >>> RIRs to a single contract with a single RIR. There are a variety of reasons >>> that have absolutely nothing to do with any idea of geographic restriction >>> on usage. >> >> >> If what you say is true, then RIPE-NCC should be going after a number of >>> companies who are operating in Africa using primarily RIPE-NCC issued >>> space. Note that this is not an issue and nobody has ever claimed it to be >>> an issue. This allegation that AFRINIC addresses are restricted to Africa >>> is a fiction that has only ever been promulgated in the context of AFRINIC >>> and has never received serious attention in any other RIR. >> >> >> AFRINIC has not won or last any cases yet regarding the geographical >> restriction of IP Utilization. This is more misinformation from you. >> >> I expect that with regard to that particular issue, AFRINIC will lose, as >> a plain text reading of the governing documents does not support such aa >> restriction except in the case of addresses issued after the activation of >> the soft landing policy. >> >> What is happening in Mauritius is a member attempting to defend their >> rights under the contract they signed against a board that is misconstruing >> the bylaws and acting outside of its authority. >> >> The board has repeatedly lost, though it has achieved a few procedural >> victories. Despite its victories, the board remains subject to a series of >> injunctions preventing it from taking any of multiple illegal actions it >> has attempted, including its attempt to run a rigged election. Most of the >> cases are still undecided. >> >> Anyone can convince himself with any lie and convince the minions >> involved in this issue who have been (mislead) and unfortunately (paid to >> spread lie) >> >> >> I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client. This >> statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and is, >> frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence. >> >> When someone accuses an organization of corruption, he should provide >> evidence, not just a video, especially if he/she/it and under the table >> corrupting the members to buy Votes. >> >> >> I’ve made no videos, so I can only assume you are referring to someone >> else here… Perhaps yourself? >> >> If you think the misquotes you sent before are convincing, maybe to your >> good self, but not to me and i did not reply as I usualy say what i want >> and walk, reason being I have no time to waste on endless discussions as >> the 2nd party is very sure is justifying a wrong cause. >> >> >> What misquote, exactly? Please point to where my quote was in error and >> be specific. >> >> I literally copied and pasted the text of section 6 of the bylaws. >> >> By the way, I did not mention anyone in my email except PTA so which >> company you are talking about?! >> >> >> I was talking about you and the misinformation contained in your >> statements. I thought that was clear from the context. >> >> Owen >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 14, 2022, at 14:32 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng> wrote: >>> >>> Dear members, >>> my attention was drawn to another misleading video of known sources who >>> are taking maliciously all steps against the Members of AfriNIC and AfriNIC. >>> >>> in the Video I noticed a misleading statement about the "Government of >>> Pakistan" but when i paused and looked at the document it is the Pakistan >>> tELECOM authority and not the government itself. >>> >>> I am writing this post following an email sent to the Pakistan >>> telecommunication Authority aka PTA, through their website to: >>> >>> a- ask, have you really drafted and sent that letter? >>> b- inquire, on what basis have you sent that letter? have you at least >>> communicated with AFRINIC TO HEAR THEIR PART OF THE STORY? >>> c- raise a solid query with regards to their breach of our sovereignty >>> as an African continent, Regions, Countries, and Nations through the >>> alleged Letter sent to the government of Mauritius in support of a >>> fraudulent misleading organization requiring some details on how Africa's >>> IPV4 addresses ended and are in USE in Pakistan, which, as per the last >>> time I checked, is not an African country. >>> >>> >>> Misleading? As in the misleading claim that AFRINIC issued addresses are >>> somehow restricted to use in Africa when nothing in the bylaws, RSA, or CPM >>> says so? >>> >>> You continue to repeat this claim despite repeated clarifications and >>> corrections on the fallacious nature of the claim. Clearly, you are the one >>> engaged in a campaign of disinformation. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss