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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jul 28, 2021, at 14:43 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss <community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 

> Ronald is very right.

> 

> How that can be possible?


By no longer relevant, I mean it does not apply to the current business environment and business model
under which Cloud Innovation currently operates. Updated information was, per policy, submitted to AFRINIC
as things changed. This is perfectly normal for any ISP or other form of LIR.


> Of course, the original justification is *extremely relevant*. Was it done properly and in good faith?


First: yes. It was proper and in good faith for a business model that was very effective and useful at the time.


> Was it properly checked by the staff? Was the relevant staff doing correctly his/her job?


To the best of my knowledge, yes. To the best of my knowledge at least the last two allocations were also reviewed by the board prior to being issued.


> Is that justification still valid, or if the original intended usage has been changed, has that been reviewed with the staff to ensure compliance with policies and rules?


Cloud Innovation provided updates to AFRINIC about our changing utilization patters in accordance with policy to the best of our knowledge. While we have received indications from staff that they do not consider our updates to be sufficient, we have not, as yet, been able to get any clear indication from staff what the nature of these insufficiencies are and we have been unable to obtain an actionable request from staff that would allow us to provide a more useful answer.


> I could understand that you could change the usage of a small % and it is just fine, but if it is the majority of the allocation, the original documented purpose may not be longer valid.


We agree that the original documented purpose is no longer valid and have, as per policy requirements submitted updated information about the new purpose as each subordinate prefix was repurposed.

I am not personally sure if there are any subordinate prefixes which are still utilized for the original purpose. But I am confident that each of the prefixes which was repurposed was properly updated with AFRINIC as required in policy.


> If I said "I'm going to setup a network connecting 8 million users in a, b and c African countries, please allocate 9 million addresses to me". If then I change my business plan or actually *never* setup this network, the original documentation provided to justify the allocation, is not valid. Otherwise, every AFRINIC member could do the same, just to circumvent the rules!


Sure, but if you said I’m going to provide addresses to number more than 6,000,000 hosts on our own and our customers networks, please give me 6,000,000 addresses in 2013 and 2014 (and we did this in the form of 4 sequential requests as utilization increased), and you can show that the networks were actually built out at each phase and you can show that the addresses are still utilized in a manner consistent with that description, then there’s no valid basis for reclamation.


> Note that my comments are *in general* not just for CI or whatever is the AFRINIC member name or the number of allocated/assigned addresses.


Fair enough. My comments are specific to CI because that is the specific case that I know and which seems to be the subject of this conversation.


> We need to be crystal clear and transparent: If we want that the documented purposes for any member can change without a re-check, then it is open to all kind of cheating and I don't think the community adopted such rules. To allow that, we will need to agree, via the PDP on that.


It did not change without a re-check. It changed over time on multiple prefixes and was visible to AFRINIC staff for changes beginning in 2016.

The first indication we ever received that anything was not considered valid in this process came in the latter half of 2020. This is all documented in the timeline we posted to community-discuss several days back.

Owen


> 

> 

> El 28/7/21 23:31, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> escribió:

> 

>    In message <A6907712-42DC-4D51-8EDA-F9EE6F1D4066 at delong.com>, 

>    Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 

>> We have already agreed that the original justification is no longer relevant

> 

>    What is this "we" Owen?  Is that the royal "we"?  Because *I* certainly

>    have no recollection that *I* ever agreed that the original justification

>    that was used as the basis for Cloud Innovation being granted two /11

>    blocks and two /12 blocks is "no longer relevant".

> 

>    And given what we now know... largely due to my work... about all of the

>    funny business that occurred at AFRINIC between, say, 2010 and February,

>    2015... the same time period when much or all of "The Great AFRINIC Heist"

>    happened... AND given the absolute and complete lack of public information

>    about how Cloud Innovation's allocations came to be in the first place,

>    I, for one, remain deeply curious about everything related to how those

>    allocations came to be made, back in 2013 and 2014.

> 

>    The only scrap of information that has, so far, been made pubic about that

>    decision process is that the decision(s) to grant Cloud Innovation two

>    /11 blocks and two /12 blocks were NOT made by the Board at the time,

>    but rather by "staff".  (Well, anyway, there were some public mailing

>    list messages to that effect at the time.)

> 

> 

>    Regards,

>    rfg

> 

>    _______________________________________________

>    Community-Discuss mailing list

>    Community-Discuss at afrinic.net

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

> 

> 

> 

> **********************************************

> IPv4 is over

> Are you ready for the new Internet ?

> http://www.theipv6company.com

> The IPv6 Company

> 

> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

> 

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Community-Discuss mailing list

> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net

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