[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Tue Dec 18 08:01:26 UTC 2018
You know what amuses me about this whole thread.
One of the concerns raised about this policy – time and again – is that it would be used to selectively target people.
Then – we were told that wasn’t the case – and the policy was made to refer to random selection and evidence base etc.
Yet what I am reading here – is people deliberately – in the context of this proposal – going after one company – with zero evidence to back up any of their claims that the allocation was or wasn’t legitimate, and despite the fact that the application had to be granted in the context of the IPv4 policy – which means the host masters would have checked the application.
So – is this policy actually what I have always feared – a tool to be used to go on witch hunts with no hard evidence that anyone wants to make public? Or are we saying that we don’t trust the host masters when they allocation space to do their checks correctly? If it’s the latter – how do you propose to deal with the fact that if they couldn’t get the allocation right – what makes you think they can audit correctly? (And I am in no way saying that the allocation wasn’t legitimate, or that they screwed up, I am not privy to those application documents to know – and neither is anyone else here)
But basically – this thread – is progressively proving that one of my (and other peoples) major concerns about this policy were dead on target – that some individuals are attempting to pass a policy to go after things they don’t feel are correct – whats next – going after the next guy who disagrees with you – or argues with you?
I started this email saying it amuses me – the fact that the fears are being shown to be very correct is amusing – at the same time – its horrifying to see the policy process abused in this manner.
From: Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com>
Sent: 18 December 2018 10:49
To: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -
The association between larus, cloud innovation and outsideHeaven has been shared on this list before - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007352.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007352.html>
Curiously, you always have strong opinions about policy proposals, but never have time to look archives to clarify important points or propose amendments.
This is not constructive considering the volume of your contributions especially as you come from another region. It is even worse when viewed in the context of Afrinic region where every little progress is treasured development.
You have been arguing about objections that have not been addressed and I find it bizarre that you could not find them....despite my efforts to provide you an initial list.
Le sam. 15 déc. 2018 à 2:41 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> a écrit :
On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha at gmail.com<mailto: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