Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!!
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
Sun Sep 21 17:16:01 UTC 2014
Again speaking as myself and not representative of the board or any other organisation to which I am affiliated.
If you feel there should be policy updates, you as a member of this community are as free as any other individual to draft and propose policy amendments.
Instead of everyone being upset by current policy and asking for amendments and waiting for someone else to do it, how about taking the lead and proposing some policy and if the community agrees, we can implement?
Group Head of IP Strategy
[cid:image001.png at 01CFD5D8.DBDFE750]
Liquid Telecommunications Limited, 6 New Street Square, London EC4A 3BF
T: +27 76 219 7933 (ZA) T: +254 733 2222 04 (KE) E: andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com>
From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf Of Kofi ANSA AKUFO
Sent: 21 September 2014 18:27
Cc: AfriNIC Discuss; AfriNIC List
Subject: Re: [rpd] [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!!
On 21 September 2014 12:22, Ernest <ernest at afrinic.net<mailto:ernest at afrinic.net>> 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 gmail.com<mailto:boubakarbarry at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> The number of posts in this thread and the discussions held in
>> Djibouti show that the community wants clarification on this
>> 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
Further to Adiel's mail above:
We have studied the community's concerns and comments (in this
thread) regarding the address resource 220.127.116.11/12<http://18.104.22.168/12> 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.
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 17933 bytes
More information about the RPD