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

[Amin Dayekh]

I am not replying to this news paper, nor I have time to read it all.

I will also ask you to remember your statement here, ( the resource holder
are pushing for a transfer policy) i will also prove you wrong!

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 4:40 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 15, 2022, at 12:00 , Amin Dayekh <admin at megamore.ng> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> Neither Larus nor Cloud Innovation is selling resources received from
> AFRINIC… I stated that many other resource holders wish to do so and that
> is one of the reasons that those resource holders are pushing for a
> transfer policy.
>
> This is not inconsistent, it is your inability to differentiate and/or
> your failure to look past your efforts to ascribe the most sinister
> possible motives to every statement I make.
>
> The RIR doesn’t govern anything. The community governs the RIR and the RIR
> is supposed to administer the registry according to the policies set by the
> community and according to its bylaws which are controlled by the
> membership of the RIR.
>
> Perhaps it is this fundamental misunderstanding of who is specifically
> supposed to be empowered in the governance of the internet and as a result
> the RIRs that is driving some of your other misstatements.
>
> For clarity:
>
> ICANN/PTI in its role performing the IANA operates the central registry
> for IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and ASNs (among other things). It does
> so according to global policies which are set by the RIRs acting in concert
> through the Address Supporting Organization, specifically the ASO AC, which
> is synonymous with the NRO NC.
>
> Each RIR receives resources from the IANA central registry according to
> its justified need and pursuant to those policies mentioned above.
>
> Each RIR distributes those resources to its subscribers (members or not,
> depending on the RIR’s specific policies) according to the policies set in
> the RIR by its community and according to the bylaws of the RIR set by its
> members.
>
> Each RIR is expected to operate within the policies created by its
> membership and according to its bylaws. When an RIR fails to do so, it
> becomes far more dangerous than is expected.
>
> Some RIR subscribers are LIRs (Local Internet Registries). LIRs provide
> address space to their customers (usually for a fee) whether in
> relationship with connectivity services or as a separate product.
>
> Some RIR subscribers are end users and simply use the address space they
> receive from the RIR directly.
>
> Every RIR except AFRINIC has an inter-RIR transfer policy at this point.
> Yes, the recipient needs to show need in the case of an inter-RIR transfer.
>
> There are many different reasons organizations want to be able to engage
> in inter-RIR transfers and I enumerated several of them. You chose to focus
> on a single one because that is the one you hope to be able to twist into
> something sinister.
>
> 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.
>
>
> If you are opposed to an inter-RIR transfer policy, then so be it. That
> has little or nothing to do with whether or not existing addresses
> registered to an organization by AFRINIC are allowed to be used outside of
> AFRICA or not.
>
> However, the policy that does exist now clearly does allow AFRINIC
> addresses to be utilized out of region virtually without restriction. A
> plain text reading of section 6 of the bylaws makes this quite clear. A
> plain text reading of the CPM finds only one place where this is
> contradicted and it applies ONLY to addresses issued after the activation
> of the Soft Landing policy.
>
> If you want to conduct legitimate audits, feel free. If you wish to abide
> by the legitimate outcome of those audits when they show legitimate
> utilization according to the CPM, the RSA, and the bylaws, I’ll fully
> support that. However, use out of region does not violate any of the terms
> in any of those documents unless the addresses were issued to the
> organization after the activation of the soft landing policy.
>
> AFRINIC is free to enforce any policy which has been adopted by the
> community and ratified by the board. There is no policy restricting the
> location of utilization of addresses which meets that test at this time.
>
> *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?
>
>
> You stated: "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. “
>
> Your claim is that AFRINIC should have already lost all cases on
> geographic basis if my statement was true. I pointed out that AFRINIC has
> neither lost nor won because the cases that relate to this matter have not
> yet concluded. I did not put words in your mouth, I responded to what you
> actually said.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ARIN never passed a soft landing policy and it worked out quite well
> there, IMHO.
>
> However, the only mention I have made regarding soft landing in any of
> these statements is to mention that it is the only policy with geographical
> restrictions on utilization codified in the policy. I’ve also pointed out
> that said policy does not apply to any addresses issued to Cloud Innovation.
>
>
> *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?
>
>
> You made the following direct statement in a message sent directly to me
> as well as an open list:
> "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)”
>
> In context, it is quite clear you were intending to level this as a direct
> accusation towards me. Your use of weasel words and attempted evasions
> notwithstanding, at least I have the courage to own what I say and take
> responsibility for it.
>
>
> *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?
>
>
> You said: "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.”
>
> You said this in an email directed to me and copied to an open list.
>
> So in effect, yes, you did claim I published a video, you did point a
> finger presumably at me, and by having my name as the target of your email,
> yes, you did mention me for all practical purposes.
>
> 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?
>
>
> In terms of the subsequent emails in this discussion, you put my name in
> the To: field of your email. If you didn’t intend to involve me, why did
> you do so?
> In terms of the original message, you made a public comment about the
> letter being sent on behalf of a “fraudulent and misleading organization”,
> so I felt obliged to point out your own misleading information that you
> have attempted to promulgate in this same forum and with your own misguided
> and misleading video.
>
> I will note, that you did not address the following component of my
> previous message:
>
> You wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>
> To which I responded:
>
> 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.
>
>
> You carefully avoided answering this… Is it perhaps because you have no
> answer here? You could not find an actual misquote?
>
> I find three messages into this conversation that this statement: "I have
> no time to waste on endless discussions as the 2nd party is very sure is
> justifying a wrong cause.”
> is truly telling as apparently I am not such a second party and therefore
> perhaps you are admitting by your actions that I do not actually have a
> wrong cause. If so, this is progress.
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
> 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/20220617/651b7771/attachment.html>