[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -
owen at delong.com
Sat Dec 15 02:39:46 UTC 2018
> On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
> What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being consumed by customers on the continent.
If your statements are true (they aren’t), then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued?
> With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the known Individual based out of Africa.
Again, more assertions without evidence.
> Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes to the AfriNIC community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere with PDP.
OK… I get it that you don’t like Larus. Nonetheless, While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions don’t match reality, I am not bought and paid for
by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with their holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy.
My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus.
> That is where the problem lays…
This is where you think the problem lies.
I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued is part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit of an agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of this policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is… An attack on large resource members by another portion of the community.
Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the review policy.
Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition.
Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations affiliated with voices opposing this proposal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss