> On Jun 16, 2022, at 22:26 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng> wrote: > > 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!
I look forward to your attempt to do so. I find it amusing how you have cherry picked what you respond to while ignoring the most salient points in the prior messages to the point where when I limit it to the salient points, you choose to ignore the entire message rather than make a cogent response. Owen > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:40 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > >> On Jun 15, 2022, at 12:00 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng >> <mailto: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 >> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Jun 15, 2022, at 09:22 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng >>> <mailto: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 >>> <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 14, 2022, at 14:32 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng >>>> <mailto: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
