[Community-Discuss] The purpose

[Frank Habicht]

Hi.

Subject changed. used to be "Re: [rpd] More confusion from Noah"
Also, this is not about resource policy development, so trying to move
to community-discuss, as i think all participants are there.

On 10/07/2021 04:48, Owen DeLong via RPD wrote:

>> On Jul 4, 2021, at 04:38 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz

>> <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:

>> 3.4) The Company shall have, both within and outside the Republic of

>> Mauritius, full capacity to carry and/or undertake any business or

>> activity, including but not limited to the following objects:

>>

>>  1. to provide the service of allocating and registering Internet

>>     resources for the purposes of enabling communications via open

                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>     system network protocols and to assist in the development and

>>     growth of the Internet in the African region;

>>  2. to promote the representation of AFRINIC membership and the

>>     Internet community of the African region by ensuring open and

>>     transparent communication and consensus-driven decision-making

>>     processes;

>>  3. to promote responsible management of Internet resources throughout

>>     the African region, as well as the responsible development and

>>     operation of Internet infrastructures;       

> 

> He didn’t skip it, [.......] on members.

> 

> Not one of those sentences enables AFRINIC to exercise any form of

> extraordinary control over the types of use of numbers other than

> possibly the implied ability to reject utilization plans which clearly

> violate applicable law.


I'd like to disagree.
I tried to highlight "the purposes" in above quote under 1.


So AfriNIC has to check that allocated/assigned Internet resources are
used (or going to be used) for *the purposes* ... of enabling
communications ....
[at allocation time, and optionally later]

And I think it is legally implied to mean that this means used by the
recipient (ie AfriNIC member) for these purposes. [1]

And I believe that any AfriNIC member requesting resources does justify
those by stating
- I need the resources for these and these devices and services of my
   own   (end user)
   or
- I need the resources for some purposes of my own (infrastructure) and
   for this number and type of Internet connectivity customers and for
   this number and type of hosting services customers   (LIR)

And I trust that then AfriNIC assigns/allocates resources for these
purposes to the member.

[
And when the member (LIR) changes the specific service from dialup
customer to DSL customer or from GPON customer to VM-hosting customer,
then it would still fit under the above set of justifications.
]

When a member however uses the resources for something else, NOT for
providing their own connectivity or hosting services, not for
sub-allocating to connectivity customers, but instead to other parties
not getting these services from the member, then in my opinion, the
member is not using the resources according to AfriNIC's mandate any more.

And people have been frank in these lists before: then the member is
using the resources only for the purpose of profit.

And some members justify this by calling the resources (ie IPv4
addresses) *their assets*.
I disagree.

The resources were given to the member for *the purposes* of providing
services by the member. I am sure you can read this in the
justifications for the applications for the resources that we are all
thinking about now.
I know that I'm not entitled to see these, and that's fine.

I think we all agree that for most LIR members the resources are given
for commercial activities, of a for-profit company.
But only as long as they are used for these activities of Internet
connectivity or hosting services - in my opinion; and apparently not in
the opinion of others.


If an IPv4 address block was assigned/allocated to a member for a
purpose - without transfer of ownership, then the member is in my
opinion not entitled to give/sell/lease/allocate the same to another
party. Can anybody advise how/when/where AfriNIC has handed that right
to the member?


I know some will say we are talking about integers, noone has the right
to integers, .....
But:
* we're talking about a set of 2^32 integers that have to have the
property of being unique all around this Internet we try to keep working.
* These integers need to be registered


I want to clarify that I see and want to make a big difference between
the narrow and wider interpretation of the word "purpose" which I'm so
on about.
Narrow purpose: I use these IPv4 addresses for a pool of 200 dialup
customers in Dar es Salaam on a POP in Mikocheni.
Wider purpose: I use these IPv4 addresses for any of my Internet
connectivity services or hosting services (managed, VM, dedicated,...)
in the network coverage area of this company.

If the narrow purpose changes and the wider stays the same, I believe it
is common understanding that a justification for the resources remains.

If a use of resources changes from within the wider purpose to outside
the wider purpose (ie gets no longer used by the member or its
connectivity or hosting customers) - then I believe that the conditions
for the allocation are no longer fulfilled.

Basically, if the member to some extend is no longer in the business of
providing Internet (connectivity or hosting) services, but in the
business of selling IP resources, then they have confirmed they no
longer have any justification for the IP resources they got as a member
of AfriNIC.

If it's just buying and selling of things (which they call assets, which
I dispute), then they could as well speculate with other things like
gold, real-estate, or any other commodity, rather than using some of
those only 2^32 unique integers. Which are needed by others on this
continent to provide internet services.


I know this mail is too long.
If I'm completely wrong, I welcome corrections.
Or any other serious responses.

Thanks,
Frank

PS:
I trust anyone trying to commercialise IP resources received from an RIR
(received for the purpose of providing services as justified) should
know that there is a risk attached to this.

PPS:
Owen:

> Not one of those sentences enables AFRINIC to exercise any form of

> extraordinary control

maybe it is ordinary control that AfriNIC is exercising. I don't know.

[1]
If I give you my car, without transferring ownership, to drive around
Dar es Salaam as a taxi, and you are to give me a regular "membership
fee", then you can not sell my car to someone in Armenia to drive
around... Yerevan (and give you some more money so that you keep a lot
and pay my "membership fee".