> On Jun 18, 2022, at 00:00 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng> wrote: > > Good Morning Owen, > > There is something i wanted to ask you about, but please give me a short > answer and straight forward: > > In your opinion, an organization that is offering bribe to people in order to > get their votes, in order to influence the outcome of the elections to her > favor in Camaros, - will that organization be trustworthy ?
With the limited information in your question, it’s impossible to form a complete opinion, but probably not. > - Will that organization have any right again to lecture about corruption > while it is promoting the culture of corruption (allegedly as per above if it > is true)? Yes. > - will you trust any word from that organization? Unknown, insufficient data provided. > - will you have faith and rely on their intensions that they are upright? I rarely have faith or rely on upright intentions of any organization. > I am not pointing any finger at you , rather i am just seeking your opinion > pls. My opinion is mostly unformed as insufficient data is given in your question. Owen > > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 7:30 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > >> On Jun 16, 2022, at 22:26 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng >> <mailto: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
