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

[Komi Elitcha]

Owen,


Le 15/12/2018 à 02:39, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>
>
>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com
>> <mailto:kmw.elitcha at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Owen
>>> 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.
>> 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),
You keep asking for evidence, but fail to prove that the statements are
false. These statements are based on public data, and it looks like you
don't really know your "employer"'s IPv4 portfolio.

> then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued?
I don't answer for AfriNIC staff, but community trust AfriNIC  to always
make the right decisions when allocating resources and also trust them,
to do the due diligence to insure usage are compliant, if not or if
resources have been obtained fraudulently, to act appropriately.

>
>> 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.

It should have been easy for Larus and its employees to show evidence of
network which matches the 6 million addresses.
What we see is  just an LIR with huge IPv4 from AFRINIC, no ASN, no
IPv6, marketing  IPv4 delegation services worldwide
>
>> 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,

it is not about "like" or not a resource member. AFRINIC, LIRs and
end-users members share same responsibilities on good management of 
resources and must behave appropriately.
> While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions
> don’t match  reality,

Which assertions ?
> 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.

Why do you keep repeating this statement  about your work relationship
to Larus?
In our African culture, repeating statements like this, does show  that 
something is worrying you.

We know your record on “*vaporware*”  till now...
>
>> 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.

The review policy proposal applies to all members as stated clearly in
the text. All AfriNIC members are supposed to pass review or get help to
improve usability.

Larus's behaviour in opposing  the review proposal by all means, only
drag more attention to them!

Other objectors have brought relevant objections which were discussed
and addressed. We are only left with, objections like:
- AFRINIC is just  bookkeeper  and has no right to review members
- AFRINIC is a $4 million organization and will not stand in court in
front of big members
- The review policy allow DDoS attacks from small members to the big members
- This policy is not needed as RSA already has provision for review.
- Members buy resources and AFRINIC can't recall them
- etc….
>
> Owen
>

-- 
KE
https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20181216/34d72e78/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: pEpkey.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 2460 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20181216/34d72e78/attachment.bin>