Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

again, do not be distracted by the rather obvious DoS on this list. our administrative infra is being attacked. defend it by putting your money where your mouth is. https://www.tespok.co.ke/?page_id=14001 i did and will again. randy

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, 22:46 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > > > > On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:48 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > >> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost? > >> > >> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 13:30 , Tom Beecher wrote: > > They attacked a member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t > actually exist. > > You continually refer to AFRINIC's actions as an 'attack'. However, that > would seem to be an open question of law , which AFRINIC cannot

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> > They attacked a member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t > actually exist. > You continually refer to AFRINIC's actions as an 'attack'. However, that would seem to be an open question of law , which AFRINIC cannot litigate because they're have no access to their money. On Wed,

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:48 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost? >> >> There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, >> including >> the CEO (who is one of the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:21 , Tom Beecher wrote: > > AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses > for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with > salaries > or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

REMINDER from the admins… Please ensure your posts are topical, do not go against the Usage Guidelines , and provide for an exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Sep 1, 2021, at 5:56 AM, Mark Tinka wrote: > >  > >> On 9/1/21 13:21, Tom Beecher wrote: >> >> >> There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through >> already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm >> tactics that prevent issues from being

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 9/1/21 13:21, Tom Beecher wrote: There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts. One would think... There are many

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 9/1/21 00:56, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost? There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, including the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in the first place). I don’t

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 22:55, Sabri Berisha wrote: I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their work cut out for them. The human cost has nothing to do with the wording of allocation language. That was

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 22:37, Rubens Kuhl wrote: I can try helping with that: in underserved regions it's not unusual for network services for that population to be physically hosted out of the region. For instance, if you have a hosting service that only accepts South African rands and your language

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 22:28, Sabri Berisha wrote: It's easy to argue that CI is in full compliance with that since their assignment supports connectivity between users in Africa and their clients' services. In that case, only IP space used outside of Africa not advertised to the internet would be in

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> > AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal > expenses > for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with > salaries > or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler > heads at > AFRINIC can prevail and some form of

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

>> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated >> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their >> work cut out for them. > > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 13:53 , Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, Sabri Berisha wrote: > >> - On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> [ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ] >> >>> "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> > But you would need to be upfront with that, including mentioning that > > your upstreams are not from Africa and your installations won't be in > > Africa. > > Otherwise you applied for number resources under false pretenses, and > > will bear the risk of such. > > Again, fair enough. And what

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

- On Aug 31, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Rubens, > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:28 PM Sabri Berisha wrote: >> In all fairness, that is as ambiguous as it can be. What constitutes "support >> of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region"? > > I can try helping with

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, Sabri Berisha wrote: - On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: Hi, [ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ] "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use outside the region should be

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:28 PM Sabri Berisha wrote: > > - On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: > > Hi, > > [ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ] > > > "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use > >

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

- On Aug 31, 2021, at 8:40 AM, Jon Lewis jle...@lewis.org wrote: Hi, [ I'm not affiliated with CI in any way, just playing the Devil's Advocate ] > "5.4.6.2 AFRINIC resources are for AFRINIC service region and any use > outside the region should be solely in support of connectivity back to

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 12:17 , John Curran wrote: > > On 31 Aug 2021, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >> >>> Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely >>> internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data >>>

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

On 31 Aug 2021, at 2:23 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data center? Sure… and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 08:40 , Jon Lewis wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> >> On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl wrote: >> >> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what >> ISPs do. It’s the definition of an LIR. >>

Re: Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

> Do we have parties who postulate their operational need based on entirely > internal services, or services that live within virtual devices in a data > center? Sure… and some of these are indeed legitimate and fulfilled per > policy. We also have folks who get creative and make similar

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

] > AFRINIC has never approved IPv4 for purposes of leasing. There is a public > statement to this effect. > > > Yes. Nonetheless, it does not change the fact that every LIR that is a > resource member of AFRINIC leases IPV4 addresses every day, nor does > it change the fact that every

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 31, 2021, at 00:44 , Noah wrote: > > > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 03:08 Owen DeLong, > wrote: > > >> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> >> wrote: >> >> >> Owen, >> >> On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, >

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl wrote: AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs do. It’s the definition of an LIR. Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide

Operational need for IP address space (Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation)

On 30 Aug 2021, at 9:31 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote: > > (I'm going to regret this in the morning, but...) Perhaps... > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:12 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG > wrote: > > AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs >

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 05:08 John Kristoff, wrote: > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700 > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the > internet. > > Hi Owen, > > Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect. In addition

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 03:08 Owen DeLong, wrote: > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah wrote: > > > Owen, > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > >> >> >> > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote:

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 07:22, Owen DeLong wrote: Yes… AFRINIC’s actions of late are so illogical that when it comes to predicting them, all I can do is guess. And suing them for US$1.8 billion + garnishing US$50 million is significantly more logical. Got it. Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 22:21 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/31/21 07:16, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I guess that depends on whether or not AFRINIC is willing to engage in a >> reasonable >> settlement effort within the next 2 months or not. >> >> I guess we’ll see what they do. > > Lots

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 07:16, Owen DeLong wrote: I guess that depends on whether or not AFRINIC is willing to engage in a reasonable settlement effort within the next 2 months or not. I guess we’ll see what they do. Lots of guessing... Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 22:06 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/31/21 01:29, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the >> current >> situation. >> >> AFRINIC has been given access to the equivalent of two months of operating

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 04:42, Tom Beecher wrote: It strikes me that ( without pointing at anyone in particular ) that there's a bit of absolutism trending in this conversation. It's possible for many things in this list to be true. - It's possible that AFRINIC may have been following it's policies

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 01:29, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the current situation. AFRINIC has been given access to the equivalent of two months of operating costs from their bank accounts in a recent court ruling, so they are nowhere

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 01:19, Nathan Angelacos wrote: Amen. Sucks to be moral. But at the end of the day, you have to go to sleep and say I did what was moral. To me, that is NANOG. Yep, easy to say when these "morals" are not threatening you and your family. Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/31/21 01:08, Owen DeLong wrote: Just as I would fight for the rights of those I disagree with to express their views in the US under the first amendment rights granted by the US Constitution. I fail to see how the U.S. Constitution is an applicable example for what CI are doing in

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 19:06 , John Kristoff wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700 > Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the >> internet. > > Hi Owen, > > Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

we all, in true nanog tradition, sure do talk a lot. but, to repeat, i put my money where my mouth is. you should too. https://www.tespok.co.ke/?page_id=14001 randy

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

It strikes me that ( without pointing at anyone in particular ) that there's a bit of absolutism trending in this conversation. It's possible for many things in this list to be true. - It's possible that AFRINIC may have been following it's policies accurately at the time of the initial

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Mon, 30 Aug 2021 16:29:48 -0700 Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > Further, the registries are not engaged in the daily operations of the > internet. Hi Owen, Your statement above I have to insist is simply incorrect. In addition to the traditional services that are relied upon in a variety

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

(I'm going to regret this in the morning, but...) On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:12 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs > do. It’s the definition of an LIR. > > All of the RIR's do this, yes. Also, yes LIR/ISP allocate space

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 18:00 , Rubens Kuhl wrote: > >> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs >> do. It’s the definition of an LIR. >> >> Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses >> (mostly/exclusively) to customers of

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> AFRINIC approves IPv4 for the purpose of leasing every day. It’s what ISPs > do. It’s the definition of an LIR. > > Yes, most LIRs are also in the connectivity business and provide addresses > (mostly/exclusively) to customers of their connectivity services. Which is why CI informed AfriNIC

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:32 , Noah wrote: > > > Owen > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, > wrote: > > So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in > this case, I believe AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate > > If you

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 16:19 , Noah wrote: > > > Owen, > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, > wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > >> You may not like

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Owen On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > > So yes, I continue to work for and support Lu in this capacity because in > this case, I believe AFRINIC has overstepped its mandate If you believe, then we leave it at that. Its beliefs. and acted contrary to its own policies

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Um, Mike, no… That’s neither a fair nor accurate characterization of the current situation. AFRINIC has been given access to the equivalent of two months of operating costs from their bank accounts in a recent court ruling, so they are nowhere close to shut down. All of the chicken littles

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 16:08 -0700, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > > I am here doing what I am doing because I have ethics and morals. > Because even though I often disagree with Lu, in this case, he > happens to be right and AFRINIC must not be allowed to act so > irresponsibly in this

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Owen, On Tue, 31 Aug 2021, 02:10 Owen DeLong via NANOG, wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > > > > > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his > business model myself, but it is

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 07:44 , Mark Tinka wrote: > > > > On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business >> model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy. > > And yet you continue to

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

- On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:37 PM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, >> I've ran an RBL for years, which many people used. It closed down more than >> a decade ago. Out of 100 DNS queries I logged just now with a quick tcpdump >> on one of my three DNS servers, I counted 51 for

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> I really, really don't want to upset Mel more than he already is, but Owen > shared a link with an actual order of the court. After "consideration of the > affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the > merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> > After "consideration of the > affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the > merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court looked at the > facts, > made a determination and based on that ordered the asset freeze. > There's an important distinction to

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

- On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: Hello Rubens, First and foremost, I appreciate that you're keeping it civil. > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 2:35 PM Sabri Berisha wrote: >> The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person to >> go out

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 2:35 PM Sabri Berisha wrote: > > - On Aug 30, 2021, at 6:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: > > > And that's why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next > > entity that ends up with those IP addresses long after CI has gone into > oblivion

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

But to be clear, if this was a simple court case I don't think anyone on this list would have an issue with simply sitting back and letting the court decide. You have to remember though that CI in this case has essentially forced one of the major registrars to virtually shut down. That's a

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

- On Aug 30, 2021, at 6:29 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@gmail.com wrote: > And that's why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next entity that ends up with those IP addresses long after CI has gone into oblivion will have its engineers debug odd routing issues for years. We all

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

No stress, Valerie. I kind of knew it was borderline. I mean no disrespect. It just irks me that non-African entities are coming into Africa to cause unnecessary and unneeded problems, for Africa. Mark. On 8/30/21 17:17, Valerie Wittkop wrote: My apologies to Mark - I sent a message in

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

No stress, Valerie. I kind of new it was borderline. I mean no disrespect. It just irks me that non-African entities are coming into Africa to cause unnecessary and unneeded problems, for Africa. Mark. On 8/30/21 17:17, Valerie Wittkop wrote: My apologies to Mark - I sent a message in

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:38:01PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote a message of 13 lines which said: > Oddly, I recommended to a friend (one who promotes competitors do the wrong > thing, hehe) that sending CI routes to /dev/null would be ideal. Trollish idea of the day: since it is an IPv4-specific

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

My apologies to Mark - I sent a message in error to the full list that should have been sent privately. Valerie Wittkop Program Director vwitt...@nanog.org | +1 734-730-0225 (mobile) | www.nanog.org NANOG | 305 E. Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100 | Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA ASN 19230 > On Aug 30,

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Please be mindful of usage guideline number 6 - Behavior or posts that are defamatory, abusive, profane, threatening, or include foul language, character assassination, and lack of respect for other participants are prohibited. Valerie Wittkop Program Director vwitt...@nanog.org | +1

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

NANOG Mail list users, This thread has had a few twists and turns, as well as ups and downs. So I am taking a moment on behalf of the admins to remind everyone here of the Usage Guidelines . First and foremost - please

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business > model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy. If the > community doesn’t like that fact, there is a process to change the policies. > Terminating a member based on rules which don’t actually

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy. And yet you continue to work for and support him in this capacity. But hey, you have to eat.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/30/21 16:19, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: This is neither a fair nor accurate portrayal of the situation. Further, by acting as it had, AFRINIC was the one which tried to suffocate CI first. Yeah... look ma, he started it... You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 30, 2021, at 06:30, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:39 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG > wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan wrote: >>> On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: >>> It would seem reasonable to leave the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:39 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > > > > On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan wrote: > > > > On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > >> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts, > >> instead of engaging in contempt of

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> > It sounds like > the whole situation with the asset freeze could have been avoided had > AfriNIC not engaged in contempt of court to start with; surely having > more contempt of court is not the solution here, now is it? > I'm sorry, in what universe is discussing the situation on a mailing

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/30/21 08:39, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: As such, I think vigilante action and/or trying this case here on NANOG is probably not the best idea. Nor is jeopardizing, and probably ruining, the livelihoods of people who have families at home to feed, in a time when jobs are scarce and

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 29, 2021, at 17:41 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > John Levine wrote: > >> I would be astonished if ICANN had a position. For one thing, they >> have no provision for dealing with competing IP registries since the >> issue has never come up > > As > > ICP-2: Criteria for

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan wrote: > > On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > >> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts, >> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the >> vigilante justice against any of the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 29/08/2021, Jay Hennigan wrote: > On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > >> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts, >> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the >> vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 21:13 Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > %s/isolate/move/g functions. That equates to a leadership change. It may > be too soon to suggest that ICANN has any role other than risk analysis and > coordination of mitigation. I'm not even certain if that's their role > seeing how

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> %s/isolate/move/g functions. That equates to a leadership change. It may be > too soon to suggest that ICANN has any role other than risk analysis and > coordination of mitigation. I'm not even certain if that's their role seeing > how complicated the relationships between the RIR's and ICANN

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 8:44 PM Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: [ clip] As > > ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional > Internet Registries > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/new-rirs-criteria-2012-02-25-en > 2) The new RIR must

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

John Levine wrote: I would be astonished if ICANN had a position. For one thing, they have no provision for dealing with competing IP registries since the issue has never come up As ICP-2: Criteria for Establishment of New Regional Internet Registries

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts, instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users who are not even a party to this whole

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

This whole discussion reminds me of the situation the security and vulnerability researchers often face from the corporate overlords. Why is noone talking about the real issue? Namely, how could a RIR be so easily shutdown by the courts with the jurisdiction? Why is this mailing list used to

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/29/21 19:03, Jay Hennigan wrote: Technically, four plus six Bigger, is better. Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/29/21 05:58, Mark Tinka wrote: Did you know... Africa runs IPv10... Technically, four plus six -- Jay Hennigan - j...@west.net Network Engineering - CCIE #7880 503 897-8550 - WB6RDV

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

It appears that Mehmet Akcin said: > >I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this? I would be astonished if ICANN had a position. For one thing, they have no provision for dealing with competing IP registries since the issue has never come up and, until this strange situation, seemed

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/29/21 09:33, Mike Hale wrote: I feel like some IP troll literally being able to shutter a regional registrar as part of a lawsuit should be a much bigger deal on this group... Did you know... Africa runs IPv10... Mark.

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/28/21 20:10, Jay Hennigan wrote: All it would take is for one 800-pound gorilla to do so. Cloud Innovations would implode should Google, Microsoft, or Amazon drop all traffic from those blocks. This! CI are pushing their case relying on the rest of the Internet community to keep

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Sat, 28 Aug 2021, 21:25 Mehmet Akcin, wrote: > I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this? > *4) Neutrality and impartiality in relation to all interested parties, and particularly the LIRs* All organisations that receive service from the new RIR must be treated equally. The

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 12:33 PM Vincentz Petzholtz < v.petzho...@syseleven.de> wrote: > +1 on the "pro" side to keep this topic in focus (even on the NANOG list). > The community can not accept a situation where someone successfully stale > a RIR in order to max profit Considering Cloud

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

+1 on the "pro" side to keep this topic in focus (even on the NANOG list). The community can not accept a situation where someone successfully stale a RIR in order to max profit (probably on the expense of the other [local] LIRs). I would very much like seeing updates on this matter here. imho,

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

I feel like some IP troll literally being able to shutter a regional registrar as part of a lawsuit should be a much bigger deal on this group... On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 11:49 PM Masataka Ohta wrote: > > Mehmet Akcin wrote: > > > I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this? > >

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Mehmet Akcin wrote: I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this? https://afrinic.net/history In April 2005, ICANN accredited AFRINIC as the fifth Regional Internet Registry according to criteria defined in its ICP-2 document (criteria for the establishment of regional Internet

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

I am kind of curious of the ICANN/IANA position on this? On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 13:32 Masataka Ohta < mo...@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> wrote: > Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> Then, several years will be lost if we wait Mauritius court > >> settle the issue. > >> > >> A quick fix for the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 8/27/21 09:18, Aaron Wendel wrote: I suppose people who wanted to take a side could also block traffic to and from Cloud Innovations IP blocks. All it would take is for one 800-pound gorilla to do so. Cloud Innovations would implode should Google, Microsoft, or Amazon drop all traffic

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 27/08/2021 18:36, Bill Woodcock wrote: As many of you are aware, AfriNIC is under legal attack by Heng Lu / “Cloud Innovation.” John Curran just posted an excellent summary of the current state of affairs here:

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

Owen DeLong wrote: Then, several years will be lost if we wait Mauritius court settle the issue. A quick fix for the international internet community can be to abandon AfriNIC and establish, outside of Mauritius, a new entity, which may employ current AfriNIC employers, recognized by the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> On Aug 28, 2021, at 10:02 , Masataka Ohta > wrote: > > John Curran wrote: > >> Indeterminate at this time, since a “Freezing Order" issued via ex >> party hearing doesn’t actually test the strength of the arguments, as >> the affected party is not present to respond. It is only when the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

> > Maybe some will, but they'd be better off selling them before the RIRs > decide to expand their scope and start mass reclaiming for profit. > I'm sorry, what? On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 9:36 PM Laszlo Hanyecz wrote: > > On 2021-08-28 00:58, Tom Beecher wrote: > > Fundamentally I think

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

John Curran wrote: Indeterminate at this time, since a “Freezing Order" issued via ex party hearing doesn’t actually test the strength of the arguments, as the affected party is not present to respond. It is only when the case for the validation of the order is heard that the strength of the

Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

On 2021-08-28 00:58, Tom Beecher wrote: Fundamentally I think everyone should care about this situation. As I read it, it breaks down as : - AFRINIC and Cloud Innovation are engaged in a dispute over number assignment policies. - AFRINIC invokes the clause that they are reclaiming the space

  1   2   >