[rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!!

[Keshwarsingh Nadan]

Edit: That was in cote d'ivoire. Djibouti was another story.

I still remember while on a phone call with Kofi, it was clear the entire
African west coast wanted my skin.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keshwarsingh Nadan
> Sent: 19 September 2014 21:15
> To: 'Sunday Folayan'; Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA AKUFO
> Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource Policy;
> afnog at afnog.org
> Subject: RE: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!!
> 
> Dear Sunday,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On
> Behalf
> > Of Sunday Folayan
> > Sent: 19 September 2014 20:21
> > To: Omo Oaiya; Kofi ANSA AKUFO
> > Cc: Andrew Alston; AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC Resource Policy;
> > afnog at afnog.org
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our
resources!!!
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Dear Koffi and Omo,
> >
> > I am not holding brief for any applicant or hostmaster, but if a request
> comes,
> > that shows that an LIR can, and will allocate a /12, you want AfriNIC to
> > allocate a /22? Is that the interpretation of 8.3?
> 
> Definitely not. Despite that, some of us manage to get larger allocations
> and some aren't able.
> 
> > to wit:
> >
> > <BEGIN 8.3>
> > AFRINIC shall apply a slow start mechanism to all new LIRs. With respect
> to
> > allocations made by AFRINIC, the first allocation an LIR receives will
be
> the
> > size of the minimum practical allocation described in Section 8.2 (a)
> unless
> > otherwise justified.
> > The slow start policy is used by all RIR's to prevent allocations of
large
> blocks
> > of address space that may then remain substantially unassigned. AFRINIC
> > implements the slow start mechanism in a consistent and fair manner for
> > every LIR, and will apply the same principles and standards to every
> applicant
> > for address space.
> > <END 8.3>
> >
> > What about the last clause ... "unless otherwise justified?". Are you
> saying
> > that:
> >   o Applicant did not provide justification
> 
> Never, your application would otherwise be rejected.
> 
> >   o Applicant provided justification but was not ok with hostmasters
> 
> Happens most of the time
> 
> >   o Applicant provided justification and it was ok
> 
> Depends on who provides the justification, who works on the request.
> 
> >   o Applicant provided fraudulent justification
> >   o None of the above.
> >
> > Omo's email further gives nuances to some preferential actions, apart
from
> > previous accusations of corruption. What exactly are we dealing with?
> 
> Omo's right. Last year I was about to expose corruption cases regarding
IPv4
> allocations during the AOB at the AGM, I was threatened to be killed if
ever
> I would step into Djibouti.
> 
> This year I'm playing home on my playground, we'll see who can stop me.
> >
> > Let me summarize Andrew's email again: When a Board begins to reach
> into
> > operational matters not clearly in its charter or schedule, or not
> specifically
> > assigned by policy, it is recipe for disaster.
> >
> > Sunday.
> >
> > On 19/09/2014 16:21, Omo Oaiya wrote:
> > > On 19 September 2014 14:51, Kofi ANSA AKUFO <kofi.ansa at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a
> > >> first (initial) time request? What does the current policies say
> > >> about such requests? What was the out come of the results of
> > >> hostmasters evaluation? Did hostmasters make any recommendation to
> > >> management?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This connects with the clarity I requested.   Policy seems to be
> > > quite clear to me in AFPUB-2005-v4-001 (8.2 -8.3) but others might
> > > have other interpretation.
> > >
> > > As much as we want different,  Universities and NRENs are being
> > > treated in line with policy.  Why was this allocation treated
> > > differently?  Are there any others getting preferential treatment that
> > > is not guided by "rule of law"?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________ rpd mailing
> > list
> > > rpd at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> > >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> >
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHFfjAAoJEH6UvSz6fA253IgIAIMJ1rn7D+kRAgOsn90cc5M
> > 2
> >
> 5uRdrHVT4Dh/v1HcPj0PbYVgzKdLxAj1qsQFeeqXO6Rl2D1XYPQ1vRmtV0W54y
> > eU
> >
> dmLrXk5xejJhuaNsJYbWRTOjIPzCeHC1N4HcAuBRosRVsbPwfHUwEvymog0g1
> > ZWg
> >
> uVWnc96i7ck/37+fyjSqwDSoBVDhLRrjzdcSADrGFGfoZHwmfeJJU0Lp1otskBX
> > 7
> >
> YE99fPs/nzJagRoPPuJbW+xxi/6beKkShu1BOO+Zi6/74NpJN85wWVaXpRdGXJ
> > HW
> >
> Wt9f7Opb1XvY9kNue73J9P3dXFsUIaNxc0w193U13BptmQ/KeRNGhhxuifqS0
> > OQ=
> > =AnYV
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > rpd mailing list
> > rpd at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6435 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140919/e61e499d/attachment.p7s>