Dont forget that the acts are related directly and simultaneously to their allegations.
It is a course of time and good conduct that takes the enterprise to prove their good standing and change the general perception. Anyways I wish you well. On Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 11:06 AM Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > 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> 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