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

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Wed Jul 28 03:35:17 UTC 2021

> On Jul 27, 2021, at 16:04 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:




> Le mar. 27 juil. 2021 à 22:38, Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com <mailto:rfg at tristatelogic.com>> a écrit :

> In message <EB7A56BA-198E-480A-9F82-74561EAA7369 at me.com <mailto:EB7A56BA-198E-480A-9F82-74561EAA7369 at me.com>>,

> Barry Macharia <barry.macharia at me.com <mailto:barry.macharia at me.com>> wrote:


> >This is loud and clear

> >

> >Afrinic resource are meant for African region, is that also loud and clear too.


> No, actually, it isn't. And that's the problem.


> I am not here to defend Lu Heng or Cloud Innovantion, but as I understand

> it, Lu Heng's claim is a simple one: He successfully met all of the

> requirements, as necessary, in order to request and to receive, from

> AFRINIC, all of the 6,291,456 IPv4 addresses that AFRINIC did in fact

> assign to him, as of the dates when he received these allocations, which

> were four different dates in 2013 and 2014. He further contends that

> there is no legal basis, either within the RSA that he signed, or


> Cette assertion n'est pas correct, les textes d'Afrinic sont assez clair et étaient basés sur la bonne foi des membres à respecter les principes de base, de la bonne pratique et non sur certains capitalistes véreux qui ont des agendas cachés. C'est pourquoi certaines conditions qui normalement étaient d'office compris par les parties, n'ont pas à être transcrit dans le RSA au risque en le faisant d'avoir un document aussi gros qu'une bible. Ce membre a profiter de certaines familles (chemin pas très correct) pour obtenir les ressources qu'il a avec l'aide de certains membres corrompu du staff et du Board qui se connaissent très bien.


> Cela ne change pas que la procédure d'obtention n'a pas été propre, clean.

It is your assertion that is not correct. You cannot make policy up out of thin air
when a contract and written governing documents exist and contain contrary

To do so is a path to anarchy, not a responsible way to run a major internet



> within the AFRINIC Bylaws, or within any community-apporved policies

> which would allow AFRINIC to now withdraw those allocations in 2021.


> As part of these over-arching contentions, Lu Heng has also actually or

> effectively asserted that there are little or no binding requirements upon

> AFRINIC resource members that they must operate or deploy their assigned

> number resources in a manner which preferences any particular geographical

> region.


> Ceci aussi n'est pas correct, c'est faire preuve de mauvaise foi que d'interpréter les textes d'Afrinic dans ce sens. Il faut tenir compte de l'historique de l'attribution des ressources. Elles sont belles et bien régionales et non globales. Ceci est incontestable même par toi Ronald. Donc ce n'est parce qu'il a mal interprété les textes d'Afrinic qu'il a raison.

Here, again, it is you, Arnaud who are not correct. Even the history of address
distribution started out being globally managed from a single point. Eventually,
regional registries were created, first in Europe and then in Asia for the
purposes of linguistic and time-zone convenience and little else. Other than
LACNIC, I am not aware of a single RIR which has any in-region use requirement
codified in its governing documents. Even in the case of LACNIC, it is permitted
to use up to 49.9999999% of your address space out of region.


> I personally do not have sufficent information to judge whether he is

> right or wrong about any of these contentions and so I reserve judgement.


> Non personne ne fait de jugement mais chacun présente son opinion personnelle. On peut se tromper mais les arguments historiques sont indélébiles, on en peut pas ne pas en tenir compte.

Indeed. There is a long history in every RIR of out-of-region use of addresses by multi-regional companies.

I agree that this history should not be ignored. Why do you insist on trying to do so?

> He may perhaps be right, in which case it is NOT true to say that

> "Afrinic resource are meant for {the} African region". And if that is

> true, it may defy and fly in the face of many people's beliefs and

> expectations, including mine, but beliefs and expectations are not

> the law.


> C'est surprenant que l'aspect historique t'échappe à se point sauf si ta mémoire est brusquement devenue sélective. Les registres sont tous appelés Registre Régionaux, par conséquence sémantique, toutes leurs activités sont régionales et les ressources dont elles ont la charge sont réservées à leur région, pour que ces ressources se retrouvent dans une autre région, il faut une politique de transfert inter-region duement ratifiée. Ce qui n'est pas le cas d'Afrinic. Par conséquent ces ressources doivent être utilisées uniquement dans sa région sauf conditions exceptionnelles accordées par d'Afrinic.


> Nous avons vu comment des gens ont voulu faire passer une telle politique par des voies controversées, mais qui a échoué heureusement.


Yes, because they support registrants headquartered (or domiciled) in their respective regions. Their activities are regional, but this does not require that their members or customers activities be entirely regional.

The idea that their resources are reserved strictly for the region in which they operate is a fallacy that is not true in any RIR, not even LACNIC which comes closest to such a restriction.

As to your claimed failure of the resource transfer policy, please point to where this was declared. To the best of my knowledge, its current state is pending board ratification.

> The law is the law, contracts are in writing, and the courts

> are now tasked with figuring out who is in the right and who is in the

> wrong. The speculations and fervent beliefs of the rest of us, as

> expressed on this mailing list, will, in the end, be rather entirely

> irrelevant.


> Merci Ronald de ne pas glisser dans tes informations souvent plausibles, des informations erronées ou non fondées.

Of all people, RFG is not one I would accuse of having frequently erroneous or unfounded information. There are many areas where I don’t agree with RFG and even some areas where I find his “UI” difficult. Nonetheless, I find him to be quite diligent about facts and that he operates at a very high degree of accuracy.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20210727/87a5fdbb/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list