> On Jun 18, 2022, at 00:26 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng> wrote: > > 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?
Yes. > Are you sure? Yes. Just because a company has committed some bad acts does not mean that every thing they say can be discounted or regarded as non-credible. If such were the case, nobody would ever buy Microsoft products, for after all, that company is a convicted felon. The California PUC regularly listens to PG&E despite their numerous felony convictions as a company. > 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? It is certainly OK by me. Whether or not I will accept your word will depend on a great many factors not in evidence in the current discussion, so I cannot give a certain answer to that last question, which is pretty much what I said in the previous response below. Owen > > On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 8:19 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com > <mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: > > >> On Jun 18, 2022, at 00:00 , Amin Dayekh <ad...@megamore.ng >> <mailto: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
