[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 11, 2018, at 03:07 , Benjamin Eshun <benjamin.eshun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Owen,
> 
> This thread is not about a particular policy as community is
> discussing  two  possible threats to Afrinic PDP and its governance in
> general.

Did I say that it was? If so, please point to it.

> Your obstinacy to discuss and oppose review proposal everywhere  and
> at any occasions, made me doubt and question your real relationship
> with Larus…
> 

My opinion of the review policy predates any working relationship with Larus,
so if you believe I formed my opinion on that basis, you are mistaken.

> Thank you for disclosing your work relationship with Larus.You are
> conflicted and I would expect you to observe ethics in this discussion
> affecting Larus  holding 6 millions  IPV4 and opposing the review
> proposal.

I’ve never made secret of the fact that I have done some consulting
work with Larus and this is not the first time I’ve disclosed it, so
again, I think you have your facts wrong.

Further, my consulting relationship with Larus did not begin until just
prior to the Dakar meeting. You will notice that my opposition to the
review policy began well before that.

Finally, no, I am not conflicted and your claim that I am constitutes
an ad hominem attack.

The review proposal is a bad proposal. It was a bad proposal before
I started doing any work with Larus, and it remains a bad proposal.

Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that
they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or
better than any other resource holder, so I’m not sure why you believe
the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the
discussion.

> Let's expect others who have worked or working with Larus to have the
> courage to also disclose.

I would hope anyone would disclose their relationships, though this is
voluntary as has been pointed out in the past.

Perhaps if you were not so quick to think that you can call COI just
because someone works for a particular resource holder that is known
to hold an opposing position, people would be more likely to disclose.

For a COI to exist, one needs to be in a position of power (e.g. PDWG
co-chair) in addition to having the potential to benefit from the policy
going one way or another.

ALL resource members are impacted by virtually any policy change.
By your intended meaning of COI above, no resource member or
anyone affiliated with any resource member would ever be able to
participate in any policy discussion due to COI. This is absurd.

> Policy discussions happen on rpd and must remain there. As for your
> claim about my support to the review proposal, I strongly believe in
> accountability and transparency. As you keep questioning board
> actions, I do support that those who has been granted "right to use"
> public resources be held accountable to them.

I’m all for accountability and transparency and this is already supported
by the review provisions in the RSA. The proposed review policy is not
about accountability and transparency, it’s about empowering the more
radical elements in the community with the ability to conduct a form of
financial attack against resource members they don’t like.

> RIR governance (*) is so important  and i would like to see AFRINIC
> holding good position among the five RIRs and will always support
> actions aiming to improve governance and accountability.

Well, one of the best actions that could be taken in support of that claim
would be to recognize this review policy for what it is and withdraw it.

> I have nor worked for Larus nor be sponsored by OIF, but I do know how
> OIF support has been instrumental  to this community through, AFNOG,
> AFRICACERT, AFTLD..

I don’t believe I’ve ever attacked OIF or their participation. While I do share
some of the suspicions expressed about the actions of at least some of the
people routinely sponsored by OIF to attend AfriNIC, I don’t have enough
evidence to make any accusations and have not done so. Further, I have
not, until you made this call, so much as expressed my suspicions in a
public forum.

Owen