Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Kofi ANSA AKUFO kofi.ansa at
Sun Sep 21 15:26:34 UTC 2014

On 21 September 2014 12:22, Ernest <ernest at> wrote:

> Adiel Akplogan wrote thus on 9/20/14, 11:41 PM:
> > Hello Boubakar,
> >
> > On Sep 20, 2014, at 23:28 PM, Boubakar Barry
> > <boubakarbarry at> wrote:
> >> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in
> >> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this
> >> allocation.
> >>
> >> In the best interest of our organisation (i.e. AfriNIC) and in
> >> order to restore trust, Management and Board should take this
> >> seriously and provide adequate responses to the issues raised.
> >
> > This allocation has followed the same process and procedure as
> > any other requests sent to the IP analysts. In term of
> > application and interpretation of the current policy nothing in
> > this one was different. I think the RS team will be sending all
> > the clarifications on the process shortly. Beyond that, I think
> > there is a lot of emotional speculation that we need to avoid to
> > be dragged into … as you said in the interest of the
> > organisation.
> Further to Adiel's mail above:
> We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this
> thread) regarding the address resource that was
> allocated to Cloud Innovation on 2013-Jul-24.
> Although we cannot divulge detailed information due to
> confidentiality requirements, let us take this opportunity to point
> out the following:
> o The request was received and evaluated as usual, against
> compliance with all criteria in the IPv4 Allocation Policy and it
> fully satisfied all eligibility requirements.

> o Being a large chunk of space, the hostmaster team provided an
> evaluation report to executive management (which contained the
> evaluation process and the team’s recommended decision on the
> request). Management consequently approved its issuance.
> Thank you for the clarification.

> o The current IPv4 allocation policy does not contain any
> restrictions to out-of-region address space usage specifically when
> end-users of that space are located out of region. What IP analysts
> examine is the legal existence of the requestor (and its
> infrastructure that supports services to be provided) in the region.
> Where customers are located is generally not the IP Analysts main
> concern unless there is observed incoherence in the request.
Which means our current IPv4 policies needs amendment to fall inline  or
concretely reflect the regions development agenda without stiffening
expansion of services to other regions.

> o We have in the past few meetings informed the community (in the
> policy implementation report) about the observed increase in
> requests from companies registered in our region of service (with
> evidence of their infrastructure hosted in the region) but
> planning to provide services that are used by customers out of
> region. We informed the community with intent that the community
> considers a policy around this issue if deemed necessary.
Should we interpret this as "content which promote the regions development"
should be KEY in any amendment proposed?

> We would like to state here that as long as a request has adhered to
> policy, AFRINIC will in most cases approve it, unless there are
> other visible factors impeding its approval (and needing further
> study and perhaps escalation).

Again any proposal to amend current policy should spell out a clear
escalation process to include the member community.

Thank you



> Regards,
> Ernest.
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list