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

[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Owen DeLong owen at
Tue Jul 18 16:27:13 UTC 2017

> On Jul 15, 2017, at 12:14 , Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 4:54 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
>> I will not restate all my previously stated objections here now, but to
>> claim that anyone opposing this policy is doing so for selfish reasons is as
>> erroneous as it is inappropriate.
> Of course you can opt to stay in denial on that very fact. But it will
> not change the truths and realities of the situation.

I have no selfish reason for opposing this policy. I challenge you to provide one.

You have stated (at least twice now) that anyone opposing this policy is doing so
for selfish reasons. Please back up this claim or withdraw your claim that I am the
one who is in denial here.

Neither I, nor my company have any resources subject to review under this policy, nor would
we be subject to the onerous requirements it imposes.

> The majority that have supported this proposal appear to represent
> legitimate business operations having a strong and well known business
> footprint on the continent.

I would argue that Akamai has a strong and well known business footprint on the continent and
is a well known legitimate business operation.

> The majority that are opposed to this proposal appear to not fully
> understand the realities of the continent's needs and appear to be
> mostly having business interests outside the continent or siding with
> folks that have operations mostly outside the continent.

Please explain what unique needs of the African continent this proposal would
address that don’t apply any where else in the world? Please explain how businesses
that have interests outside of the continent or mostly outside of the continent would
in any way make this policy significantly worse for them? (Seems to me that the less
your business interests are tied to Africa, the less relevant this policy would be).

Indeed, this policy has no potential to impact me whatsoever in any direct way. My reasons
for opposing it are that I think having AfriNIC continue to exist is good for the internet
and I believe this policy is likely very unhealthy for AfriNIC from a fiduciary perspective.

AfriNIC’s lawyer has said exactly that. Several board and former board members have said
exactly that. Others have also said exactly that.

> (I am trying to write this as diplomatically as possible and as
> frustrating as this may sound, it starts to make sense if the PDP is
> restricted only to paying members given that outputs from the process
> mostly end up directly affecting members and their businesses)

This would be dangerous, ill-advised, and unprecedented among the 5 RIRs to date.

If we close the PDP down to paying members, then we create a situation where affected and
impacted stakeholders (such as members’ customers) are disenfranchised and unable to
voice their concerns. Among other issues this would create, it would very likely put
AfriNIC on the very very bad side of anti-trust regulations in several jurisdictions,
possibly including it’s home in MU.


More information about the RPD mailing list