[Community-Discuss] Demanding Clarification and/or apology from PTA

[Amin Dayekh]

Owen,
for the sake of time, I will quote and reply and highlighted in red from
your ext

*quote: ( Because many resource holders wish to be able to sell their
underutilized resources in a worldwide secondary market. ) *you used the
term sell, in another reply you denied selling, anyway whatever the term
is, this should be governed by the rir, there should be an application with
the knowledge of the rir and justification of the use, just like when you
apply to RIR directly, not an unmonitored process. Let me remind us here of
the difference between inter-rir and LIR to another member. this step was
taken by many rir "inter rir transfer" who own majority of the IPV4, and to
regulate the transfers and continue to monitor the ipv4, closing the door
on black and grey market. let me remind us also that such cases peculiar to
need and in cases of bankruptcy or whatever reason the company might be
dissolved. Also let me remind us all the ip resources are assigned "not
sold" to lir based on NEED, justified need.

quote: ( *.... RIPE-NCC should be going after a number of companies who are
operating in Africa using primarily RIPE-NCC issued space. Note that this
is not an issue and nobody has ever claimed it to be an issue. This
allegation that AFRINIC addresses are restricted to Africa is a fiction
that has only ever been promulgated in the context of AFRINIC and has never
received serious attention in any other RIR.) *Answer: AfriNIC got the
smallest portion of ipv4 and it is called AFRICAN etc... enforcing a policy
"which does not exist as of now" to transfer inter RIR or sell will be
suicide to the continent's digital future as the world is at the scarcity
of IPV4, my view. Rather, Auditing the existing delegations and retrieval
is what is supposed to happen. in the meantime, the companies you are
referring to are companies of legitimate presence, not ip brokers and have
ASNs. What is applicable to RIPE or ARIN is not necessarily applicable to
AfriNIC, they can enforce any policy and afrinic is at liberty to do such,
with the view of the little ip resources available and the big future of
Africa.

*quote: (AFRINIC has not won or last any cases yet regarding the
geographical restriction of IP Utilization. This is more misinformation
from you.)* I did not make any statement about winning on geographical
grounds, why are you putting words in my mouth that I did not say? who is
misinforming now?

quote : (....soft landing) Soft landing was very good in other rir if you
really wish to compare, refer to ARIN website and see how soft landing was
easy.

*quote : ( I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client.
This statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and
is, frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence.)*  did i say you? did
i point any finger to you? why are you always whining and dtrying to get in
the center of attention as if the whole world is revolving because of you
and around you? I said : *Anyone *can convince *himself with any lie* and
convince the minions involved in this issue who have been (mislead) and
unfortunately (paid to spread lie), did you see you or me or owen or amin
in this statement?

*quote: ( I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client.
This statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and
is, frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence. ) *Again: Did I say
you published any video? did I point any finger at you? did I mention you?

My email was about PTA, our legal team communicated with them on their
website in Pakistan and the Website of the Embassy in Mauritius and through
a Letter TO THE embassy here, and will send further to the
embassies/commission/high commission/consulate (if any) in all African
Region, so may I understand what involved you here? Are you from Pakistan
or the spokesperson of PTA?



On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 6:31 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 15, 2022, at 09:22 , Amin Dayekh <admin at megamore.ng> wrote:
>
> Owen,
>
> Don’t rush, all in good time.
>
> Yes Misleading the public on claims and claims and claims with no single
> piece of evidence!
>
> AfriNic acted according to the Bylaw and court, allow me here to refresh
> your memory, if the ipv4 is not restricted to ise in Africa then why the
> proposals for inter RIR transfer and Other proposals from the Meeting which
> are available online? If that is allowed then AfriNic shouod have lost all
> cases. What is happening in Mauritius is an abuse of the Judicial System.
>
>
> *Because many resource holders wish to be able to sell their underutilized
>> resources in a worldwide secondary market.* Other companies wish to be
>> able to obtain addresses from that same market once the artificially
>> constrained AFRINIC free pool is exhausted. Because some companies would
>> prefer to consolidate their global resources from multiple RIRs to a single
>> contract with a single RIR. There are a variety of reasons that have
>> absolutely nothing to do with any idea of geographic restriction on usage.
>
>
> If what you say is true, then RIPE-NCC should be going after a number of
>> companies who are operating in Africa using primarily RIPE-NCC issued
>> space. Note that this is not an issue and nobody has ever claimed it to be
>> an issue. This allegation that AFRINIC addresses are restricted to Africa
>> is a fiction that has only ever been promulgated in the context of AFRINIC
>> and has never received serious attention in any other RIR.
>
>
> AFRINIC has not won or last any cases yet regarding the geographical
> restriction of IP Utilization. This is more misinformation from you.
>
> I expect that with regard to that particular issue, AFRINIC will lose, as
> a plain text reading of the governing documents does not support such aa
> restriction except in the case of addresses issued after the activation of
> the soft landing policy.
>
> What is happening in Mauritius is a member attempting to defend their
> rights under the contract they signed against a board that is misconstruing
> the bylaws and acting outside of its authority.
>
> The board has repeatedly lost, though it has achieved a few procedural
> victories. Despite its victories, the board remains subject to a series of
> injunctions preventing it from taking any of multiple illegal actions it
> has attempted, including its attempt to run a rigged election. Most of the
> cases are still undecided.
>
> Anyone can convince himself with any lie and convince the minions involved
> in this issue who have been (mislead) and unfortunately (paid to spread lie)
>
>
> I have not and will not lie on behalf of any employer or client. This
> statement is an ad hominem attack, is inappropriate to the list, and is,
> frankly, a libelous accusation without evidence.
>
> When someone accuses an organization of corruption, he should provide
> evidence, not just a video, especially if he/she/it and under the table
> corrupting the members to buy Votes.
>
>
> I’ve made no videos, so I can only assume you are referring to someone
> else here… Perhaps yourself?
>
> If you think the misquotes you sent before are convincing, maybe to your
> good self, but not to me and i did not reply as I usualy say what i want
> and walk, reason being I have no time to waste on endless discussions as
> the 2nd party is very sure is justifying a wrong cause.
>
>
> What misquote, exactly? Please point to where my quote was in error and be
> specific.
>
> I literally copied and pasted the text of section 6 of the bylaws.
>
> By the way, I did not mention anyone in my email except PTA so which
> company you are talking about?!
>
>
> I was talking about you and the misinformation contained in your
> statements. I thought that was clear from the context.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 5:11 PM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2022, at 14:32 , Amin Dayekh <admin at megamore.ng> wrote:
>>
>> Dear members,
>> my attention was drawn to another misleading video of known sources who
>> are taking maliciously all steps against the Members of AfriNIC and AfriNIC.
>>
>> in the Video I noticed a misleading statement about the "Government of
>> Pakistan" but when i paused and looked at the document it is the Pakistan
>> tELECOM authority and not the government itself.
>>
>> I am writing this post following an email sent to the Pakistan
>> telecommunication Authority aka PTA, through their website to:
>>
>> a- ask, have you really drafted and sent that letter?
>> b- inquire, on what basis have you sent that letter? have you at least
>> communicated with AFRINIC TO HEAR THEIR PART OF THE STORY?
>> c- raise a solid query with regards to their breach of our sovereignty as
>> an African continent, Regions, Countries, and Nations through the alleged
>> Letter sent to the government of Mauritius in support of a
>> fraudulent misleading organization requiring some details on how Africa's
>> IPV4 addresses ended and are in USE in Pakistan, which, as per the last
>> time I checked, is not an African country.
>>
>>
>> Misleading? As in the misleading claim that AFRINIC issued addresses are
>> somehow restricted to use in Africa when nothing in the bylaws, RSA, or CPM
>> says so?
>>
>> You continue to repeat this claim despite repeated clarifications and
>> corrections on the fallacious nature of the claim. Clearly, you are the one
>> engaged in a campaign of disinformation.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20220615/ee9e64ee/attachment.html>