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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Jul 27 16:27:34 UTC 2021




> On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:31 , Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

>

> Hi,

>

> did any of those make any commitment like "we are using these to connect

> our customers in Africa" ?


I have no idea what they did or did not commit to with regards to Africa.
How is that relevant to the question at hand regarding the amount of address
space in question?


> Did CI?


7 years ago, CI made such a statement. CI subsequently adapted to the changing business
environment and expanded its operations to include both Africa and other continents. CI
submitted appropriate updates to WHOIS as these changes occurred.


> PS: I count connectivity to a VM hosted by CI as ok, but not leasing

> just the IP to an entity without providing them any connectivity.


Where is your basis in policy for this?

Owen


>

> On 27/07/2021 08:24, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 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

>>> <mailto:leoso at afcast.com <mailto: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> <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>>> wrote:

>>>

>>> In message

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

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

>>> <mailto: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/> <http://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> <mailto: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>

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

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20210727/80f1f958/attachment.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list