[Community-Discuss] Notice to all the legacy netblocks holders        in AfriNIC

[Paul Wollner]

Hi Noah



Thanks for your prompt reply. I will say the same goes for the bylaw, they are both lawyer-made documents which should not govern the usage of community resource. Or else lawyers can do whatever they want to, then what is the point of having a community and CPM?



Using bylaw to justify the action of using RSA to manage IP resource is not only invalid (as RSA is a document written by lawyers)but also very ridiculous. These documents shouldn’t contain anything about resource management in the very first place because this can be used as an evidence of AFRINIC not following up its own “bottom up process” - which consequently violates its legitimacy of existence.



The only valid way of resource management is through PDP, by making changes to the CPM - both PDP and CPM are above any jurisdiction and any legal documents such as bylaw and RSA.



As for the bylaw and RSA, they should simply refer all resource management clauses to the CPM and delete all resource management clauses. The versions current are very poorly written and need to be redone.



Paul









---- On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 19:09:15 +0200 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote ----


Hi Paul,



Before we dwell into the RSA, please read the AFRINIC Bylaws and specifically article 3.4 sections (i) and (iii).



The constitution is clear on what the objectives of AFRINIC are among others. The RSA and ratified policies regulate the said management of Internet number resources.



Noah

On Thu, 11 Feb 2021, 19:54 Paul Wollner, <mailto:paul.wollner at africaoncloud.net> wrote:

Hello Everyone,



It is vital to note that the RSA is not the document to regulate the resource usage. If this is the case then, the entire bottom up policy will be obsolete! The RSA can easily be amended by AFRINIC which allows and permit an arbitrary form of changes being made neglecting the proper PDP flow. This form of suggestion and idea is dangerous as it allows AFRINIC absolute control.



We need to be mindful with what we say especially if we tend to argue for the sake of bashing certain individuals as this have the tendency to endanger the very basis that AFRINIC exists on, which is the bottom up policy.



The fact remains that the RSA is a mere contractual document which establishes the relationship between the Parties which are party to the document. In essence, any issues on ground of technicality is amendable and can be made right with proper resolution of the Parties and it is not the end of the world.



The above also encompass the mere technicalities including the change of nature. So long as the change of nature does not violate any written laws and are not used for crime, it should be permitted and AFRINIC should not be allowed to arbitrarily govern this, this will allow too much power upon them and, unfortunately, these recent weeks we can see clearly that at times the decisions that were made by AFRINIC are not the best.



Imagine changing the nature of one’s business and just by that your entire allocation is being revoked for that very reason. It doesn’t make any practical sense.



Regards

Paul









---- On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 23:21:39 +0200 Noah <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz> wrote ----





On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 4:47 PM Owen DeLong <mailto:owen at delong.com> wrote:

Originally, the space was used for some rather specialized connectivity services. Due to changes in the market and the legal environment, those services became less lucrative and the organization pivoted. 



Hardly any organization that has been in this business for more than 10 years is using every address they have for the exact purpose for which it was approved. 



None the less, delegating addresses to customers for their legitimate use as unique internet addresses remains the primary purpose of any IR whether it be regional, national, or local. 



There exists no requirement in policy that such delegations involve connectivity services. In fact, no RIR provides connectivity services to any of the organizations it issues addresses to. 



Certainly, if such a requirement were intended, it could have been written into the policy. 



Owen





Hi Owen,



Firstly, thank you so much for making more explicit the evidence which has been discussed here by the community since 2014.



IPv4 Addresses must be used for the purpose they were requested for and leasing is not allowed. 



I also find your point about RIR not providing connectivity services to organizations it issues addresses to, inappropriate because you know very well the mandate, role and the responsibilities of entities in the current Internet number registry hierarchy.



Noah 



_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list 
mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net 
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20210211/e4352c7d/attachment.html>