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

[Leo S]

You are right. You are a professional, I think you will not ignore the
allocation date such as you listed

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.

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 1:24 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:


> 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>

> wrote:

>

>> In message <

>> CALm9Cbn+R9oen9+9YBjfbK5gGTcmEmZ1yhxgDfw04OTC3MxeZg at mail.gmail.com>

>> Meriem Dayday <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, 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

>> 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/20210727/ce74344c/attachment.html>