You answered yes to my question, whereby I asked clearly rephrased here: a company offering bribe to people to vote in their favor, will this company be in a lny good standing or credible to talk about corruption again?
Are you sure? Owen, if I ask you today to take $100 to vote for me in the upcoming election in Camaros to be MP, and after a few days you see me in the news lecturing about corruption and pointing fingers at people whom i am labeling as corrupted, that is ok by you and you will accept my word? On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 8:19 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > 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> wrote: > >> >> >> 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> 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