[Community-Discuss] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 2, 2021, at 8:50 AM, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> Dear AfriNIC's Community, 

> 

> Hope this email finds you in good health!

> 

> Le ven. 2 juil. 2021 12:43 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <community-discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>> a écrit :

>  

> 

> 

> Hi Owen, 

> 

> Thanks for your email, brother!

> 

> 

> 

> > [...]

> 

> Assuming that even in the simple case of a single organization, it does meet the test, then one has to consider the following easy derivatives:

>  

> 

> ...interesting!

> 

> 

>         An organization which happens to have a wholly owned subsidiary that is a broker

> 

> 

> Questions: 

> 

> ~°~

> •1] Would that org be bound to the RSA?


Unlikely.


> •2] Would it be compliant to the CPM?


Unlikely.

The subsidiary organization would not have a contractual relationship with AFRINIC.

OTOH, in the simpler case above (single organization that is both an LRI in Africa and a
broker in (e.g. EU), the single organization would be a signatory and would therefore likely
be bound.


> ~°~

> 

> 

>         An organization which isn’t a broker, but happens to be the wholly owned subsidiary of a broker

> 

> 

> ...same questions, here, as above :-/


The broker likely would not be, but the subsidiary organization would likely be bound until such
time as their membership was terminated/rejected.


> Given that it's about registration of service, 

> remember RSA section 4. Conditions of 

> service...

> 

> ...particularly:

> 

> b) Cooperation:

> 

> c) Applicant's use of the service


Yes, but those only apply to registrant’s activities with regard to resources registered to them
by AFRINIC. The brokerage operation even within the same company would be independent.


>         An organization which is owned by an entity which also owns such a broker

>         etc.

> 

>  

> 

> Remember: AfriNIC has the right to 

> review the use of the service offered to 

> the resource members.


Yes, but the SERVICE in this case is the address registration of resources by AFRINIC to the member.
The brokerage activity in address resources from other RIRs are not subject to AFRINIC policies and
not covered by the RSA.


> For any “clear, objective, and transparent” version of such a prohibition, I’m pretty sure it’s relatively trivial to design a structure that is just grey enough to become “shaded, subjective, and translucent at best”.

>  

> 

> ...imho, it just adds more work to AfriNIC's 

> Staff, to protect the regional pools of 

> INRs against "non-acceptable" uses...

> being it out-of-region or not.


Why is AFRINIC at all responsible for regional pools outside of the ones under AFRINIC management?

The point here is that it is an absurd concept to prohibit companies that are both LIRs in AFRICA
and brokers from being members. It’s arbitrary, capricious, and illogical.


> Also there is a way to report on non-

> compliant behaviours...so AfriNIC's Staff 

> could benefit of a community collaboration.


Who said anything about non-compliant behaviors? I was commenting about the absurdity of someone’s
suggestion earlier that AFRINIC should terminate memberships of organizations that are address
brokers.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20210703/ae4752ac/attachment.html>