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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 12:26 , Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

> 

> 

> 

> On 27/07/2021 19:27, Owen DeLong wrote:

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

>>> <mailto: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?

> 

> I really hope we can agree that AfriNIC did never outright "sell" the IP

> address space. But gave the right to use subject to justification(s).


Actually, neither.


> If not, we seem to live in different universes.


Perhaps, but perhaps not.

AFRINIC registered blocks of numbers to Cloud Innovation for the sake of guaranteeing
uniqueness amongst cooperating entities. AFRINIC has no authority or ability to issue
any sort of “right to use” as there is no legal basis for forcing a provider to make their
router configuration choices based on the contents of any particular RIR database.

Now it would be extremely disruptive to have multiple alternate registries and generally
because of this high cost and low return, the vast majority of providers follow along with
the RIR system and the overall effect amounts to a right to use, but it’s not an actula
legal right to use. In fact, having an address block issued by an RIR doesn’t guarantee
you that any service provider will accept your prefixes, so really, at best, it’s an ability
to use more than a “right” to use.

If we can agree on that, then perhaps we are not in different universes.

Yes, the registration is subject to certain justifications and conditions as specified in
the governing documents (RSA, bylaws, CPM). Where we disagree (as near as I
can tell) is mostly on what the governing documents actually say.


> 

>>> 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.

> 

> I am not sure whether AfriNIC expanded it's acceptance for the use of IP

> resources by CI to the same extent.


AFRINIC is required by its governing documents to accept any expansion
or change of use that does not violate the policies spelled out in the CPM
and/or any other restrictions in the bylaws or RSA. For AFRINIC to arbitrarily
withhold such acceptance without a basis in community and/or. member
supported policy/bylaws would set an extremely dangerous precedent allowing
the staff to essentially reward their friends and punish those they don’t like
on an entirely arbitrary basis.It is my understanding that a fundamental
tenet of the RIR system is that RIRs are supposed to act in a fair and
impartial manner towards all resource holders. I do not see how that can
be possible if staff is allowed the latitude to make arbitrary decisions rejecting
things which are not prohibited by policy.


>>> 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?

> 

> In the justification from CI for the IP address space. which I haven't

> seen. Want to share?


I don’t have permission to share and TBH, I haven’t seen it, either.
However, if I had written it, it would read something like:

We will use the addresses to number internet connected hosts on our
own infrastructure and on our customers networks.

So, let’s assume that’s what it says and see how you can provide a
basis (chapter and verse, please) for either rejecting that justification or for
claiming that said justification does not encompass leasing.

Owen