[Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Owen DeLong]

If you think this is a shocking amount of address space, please consider the amount of space
held by:

	Non-LIRs (end users):
		Hewlett Packard
		Apple Computer

	Unclear whether to classify as LIR or not:
		Amateur Radio (AMPR)

	LIRs:
		XFINITY/Comcast
		Verizon
		Akamai
		XO Communications
		Amazon
		Microsoft
		Google
		etc.

The equivalent of 1.5 /10s (75% of a /9) is far less than any of the above organizations.

Owen



> On Jul 26, 2021, at 01:11 , Leo S <leoso at afcast.com> wrote:

> 

> Hi Ronald

> Maybe your number is correct, whether it is 6.3M or 7M,This is a shocking number for everyone especially in 201x such a large block allocated. This is not in 199x year.

> 

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 4:25 AM Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>> wrote:

> In message <CALm9Cbn+R9oen9+9YBjfbK5gGTcmEmZ1yhxgDfw04OTC3MxeZg at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CALm9Cbn%2BR9oen9%2B9YBjfbK5gGTcmEmZ1yhxgDfw04OTC3MxeZg at mail.gmail.com>>

> Meriem Dayday <meriemdayday at gmail.com <mailto:meriemdayday at gmail.com>> wrote:

> 

> >This is a direct violation of the CoC.

> 

> No, actually, it isn't.

> 

> The information about how Cloud Innovation is presently making use of

> it's assigned 6,291,456 AFRINIC-administered IPv4 addresses is effectively

> public information, and it is not difficult to derive from any number of

> public sources (e.g. RIPEStat, bgp.he.net <http://bgp.he.net/>, etc.)

> 

> If you lived in the time of Galileo Galilei, would you consider it an

> affront to public decency if some people elected to look through the

> telescope and then just describe what they saw?  And if so, then what

> is next?  Book burning?

> 

> >Disclosing such information and data without the company's consent is a

> >clear attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the

> >concerned person.

> 

> OK, let's parse that statement, because it conjoins two different obvious

> logical problems.

> 

> First, the Internet is *not* a private network.  Fact's about what various

> companies are doing on the Internet are possible to see, and to learn,

> without needing the consent of the companies inolved.  That is the nature

> of the Internet.  If you want to run your own closed private intranet,

> then go head.  Nobody will stop you and you can then keep every last

> detail of your corporate operations utterly secret.  But the minute any

> company obtains Internet number resources and starts using those, it

> *voluntarily* gives up some of its corporate secrecy in exchange for being

> a part of, and a participant on this great communications experiment we 

> call the Internet.

> 

> I personally am not now, and never have been a customer of Cloud Innovation.

> And yet even well before today I already determined for myself that well

> more that 90% of Cloud Innovation's assigned AFRINIC-administered IPv4

> address space was being deployed to other continents.  This is not a state

> secret by any means, and the information may be derived from 100% public

> sources.  Anyone clever enough to seek it out will find the same information.

> 

> Whether the manner in which Cloud Innovation is using/deploying its

> assigned number resources does or does not comport with its specific

> RSA and/or with community approved regulations is a separate question,

> and one which I myself do not have an answer to.  In any case, the

> courts will sort out those questions in due course, I imagine.  But the

> mere facts of how Cloud Innovation has deployed its AFRINIC-assigned

> resources, or how it would appear to make money, based on the available

> public evidence, are *not* corporate secrets.  Any attempt to portray

> them as such is just an attempt at heavy-handed censorship.

> 

> The second logical problem with the statement above is contained in the

> part that says "... attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences

> on the concerned person."

> 

> Exactly so!  If the guy who posted the material you are reacting to was

> willing to take the legal risk to post that material, IN SPITE OF the

> possibility that he could, at least in theory, be sued for defamation,

> then why are YOU worried about it?  Why should AFRINIC be worried about

> it?  Obviously, this (theoretical) possibility of a defemation lawsuit

> is only a problem for the guy who posted the (allegedly) defamatory

> text, and he obviiously was willing to take the risk in order to express

> his opinion, SO WHAT IS THAT TO YOU?

> 

> Here again, shouting down in the original poster in this manner appears

> to me to be just another a heavy-handed attempt at pointless censorship.

> 

> I hope that we here can all have open and frank discusions of all of the

> issues now of concern to AFRINIC without these kinds of attempts to

> muzzle dissenting viewpoints based on perfectly silly arguments.

> 

> 

> Regards,

> rfg

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Community-Discuss mailing list

> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>

> _______________________________________________

> Community-Discuss mailing list

> 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/20210726/ade24fb4/attachment.html>