[rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition

[Kofi ANSA AKUFO]

Hi Kangamutima

Come to think of it. with the exception of a few well established Telcos in
the region you would be amazed that most of the LIRs holding /15 to /8 are
not rooted in delivering services in African region.

Well we the so called Africans are selfish, ignorant and lack the balls of
carving our own path and stringent policies to drag along development in
the region. The questions we the so called Africans should be asking
ourselves are;
1. Do we need this model of an RIR? - well APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE
were created for other regions so it made sense then Africa had an RIR. But
15 years down the line we should realize this centralized model created by
a few with intelligent holes in policy, location, charade debates etc is
not helping.

*A country like Seychelles with less than 1.5 million inhabitants currently
hold 7% of the allocated resources whilst the most populated country on the
continent Nigeria with over 186 million inhabitants hold 2% of the
allocated resources. Why? Our policies enables that and our RIR needs money
to maintain huge benefits, salries and travelling costs for staffs leaving
on a paradise island which entities outside our region are willing to pay
and use the holes in our policies to register offshore companies to comply.*

2. Should the RIR be decentralized and its resources (both digital and
human) efficiently channeled with supporting revised stringent policies?
Yes we need a decentralized RIR well rooted around the continent in terms
of operations and supported by different policy mindset to *POLICE*
correlation of number resources with infrastructure and innovation in our
region.  APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE are doing the opposite and so what?

On the other hand I am not taking sides here because its annoying and
shameful to see employees of some carriers defending the current SL-BIS
because it favours them not to mention their shameful alliance with
outsiders to loot our resources. How can an entity involved in "carriers
carrier" business model officially registered on an island with less 1.3
million inhabitants have /12 IPv4 addresses. Well the current policy
enabled them to comply.

If we had stringent policy aligned to drag along even development in our
region the above /12 would have had more impact in our region.

*Wishing all the community a thoughtful and prosperous 2018 !!!*

cheer

K.


On 30 December 2017 at 19:29, Kangamutima zabika Christophe <
funga.roho at yandex.com> wrote:

> Andrew Alston de LiquidTelecom
>
> En tant qu'africain, je pense qu'il faudrait d'abord défendre les intérêts
> des africains (aujourd'hui et dans l'avenir). Les ISP dont tu parles
> contribuent pour combien au PIB des pays africains, quel ce pays africain
> qui s'est développé par l'entremise des ISP?
> La plupart des cas ce ne sont que des capitalistes qui ne voient que leurs
> intérêts au détriment même des africains considéré comme consommateurs
> dupes. Pourquoi vous ne défendez pas les Africains qui sont licensiés
> abusivement par les IPS, pourquoi vous ne condamnez pas les ISP qui fraude
> sur le fisc en Afrique?
> qui piétinent la plupart des régulations mis en place en Afrique, pourquoi
> vous ne moralisez les ISP qui se sont illustrés dans la corruption des
> dirigeants africains?
> Vous ne vous levez que lorsqu'on veut atténuer leurs appetits démesurés de
> s'accaparer des ressources numéréiques de l'afrique. Nous les vrais
> africains, panafricanistes nous gardons le droit de gérer ces ressources
> comme bon nous semble. Cette propositon de SL-BIS est plus que salutaire
> pour les internautes résidant en afrique aujourd'hui et de demain.
>
> Si la Justice Mauritienne est vraiment objective elle devrait se déporter
> et se déclarer incompétente de traiter d'un sujet qui concerne des
> ressources numériques destinés à des utilisateurs supranationaux.
>
> Andrew Alston de LiquidTelecom
>
> As an African, I think we should first defend the interests of Africans
> (now and in the future). The ISPs you are talking about contribute for
> how much to the GDP of the African countries, which African country that
> has developed through the ISPs?
> Most of the cases are only capitalists who only see their interests to the
> detriment even of Africans considered duped consumers. Why do not you
> defend Africans who are falsely licensed by the IPS, why do not you condemn
> the ISPs that fraud on the tax in Africa?
> which tramples most of the regulations put in place in Africa, why do not
> you moralize the ISPs who have distinguished themselves in the corruption
> of African leaders?
> You only get up when you want to mitigate their disproportionate appetites
> for grabbing Africa's digital resources. We, the true African,
> pan-Africanists, have the right to manage these resources as we see fit. This
> proposal from SL-BIS is more than beneficial for Internet users residing in
> Africa today and tomorrow.
>
> If the Mauritian Justice is really objective it should move away and
> declare itself incompetent to deal with a subject that concerns digital
> resources intended for supranational users.
>
> 29.12.2017, 19:07, "Andrew Alston" <andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com>:
>
> There was warning given – that should this policy proceed – it would be a
> threat to business interests and expansion of the internet on the
> continent.  I and others, are no longer prepared to wait to see if that
> threat materializes, it is best to see that threat eliminated BEFORE it
> becomes reality, hence the timing of this action.
>
>
>
> Irrespective of how one THINKS AFRINIC should be constituted – that is
> immaterial – it is what it is today – and changing it is a time consuming
> process that would require super majority votes and other things – so –
> this action is very applicable to the situation we find ourselves in *
> *TODAY**
>
>
>
> I asked the board months ago to investigate the possibility of being in
> violation of this act and to advise this community as to what steps could
> be taken to rectify it if they were in violation – despite promises – no
> word back was ever received – so now – we will test it through the tribunal
> and let them decide.
>
>
>
> I have said repeatedly on this list – a threat to corporate ISP interests
> on this continent by this organisation and by policy through the PDP will
> eventually result in severe problems – it is absolutely unconscionable that
> this community has a.) refused to pass an inbound transfer policy to allow
> entities to buy space in from outside when they need it b.) refused to pass
> a bi-directional transfer policy to achieve the same c.) decided to declare
> consensus on a policy for which there was no consensus which prevents
> organisations that have spent significant sums of money from getting any IP
> space whatsoever on the continent because of the lack of (a) and (b).
>
>
>
> That my friend, was always going to be met with swift and resounding
> challenge – and I have said repeatedly – perhaps the time has come to test
> these things beyond the waters of the lay people on this list – that time
> has come
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at yandex.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 29 December 2017 at 11:59
> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>, rpd <
> rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition
>
>
>
> Andrew,
>
>
>
> Je comprends parfaitement ton raisonnement, cela d'abord dû à la forme
> juridique adoptée par AFRINIC, elle devait être une organisation
> supranationale avec un siège en Ile Maurice mais actuellement elle est une
> organisation à but non lucratif enregistrée en Ile Maurice.
>
>
>
> Mon problème ce serait d'abord l'applicabilité d'une telle décision et le
> caractère prématuré de cette action parceque ce n'est encore qu'un projet
> de politique. AFRINIC gère des ressources allouables à des réquérants
> résidant dans un ensemble des pays. Dans tel cas, nous devrions avoir un
> texte unique régissant cette matière et ratifié par tous les Etats faisant
> partie de la couverture géographique d'AFRINIC (ça pourrait être un traité
> international, une charte comme celle des Nations Unies) mais dans le cas
> d'Afrinic il y a quand même une bouillabaisse juridique. Parceque tous les
> pays n'ont peut être pas le même entendement d'une notion comme la position
> dominante abusive en matière de gestion des ressources numériques. Et le
> jugement que cette cour rendra, se fera sur base de la procédure
> d'élaboration des politiques d'Afrinic ou sur base d'un texte analogue en
> vigueur en Ile Maurice?
>
>
>
> KANGAMUTIMA ZABIKA
>
>
>
> Andrew
> I understand your reasoning perfectly, firstly due to the legal form
> adopted by AFRINIC, it must be a supranational organization with a seat in
> Mauritius but currently it is a non-profit organization registered in
> Mauritius.
> My problem would be first the applicability of such a decision and the
> premature nature of this action because it is still only a draft policy.
> AFRINIC manages resources that can be allocated to applicants residing in a
> set of countries. In such a case, we should have a single text governing
> this matter and ratified by all the States forming part of AFRINIC's
> geographical coverage (it could be an international treaty, a charter like
> the one of the United Nations) but in the case of Afrinic there is still a
> legal bouillabaisse. Because all countries may not have the same
> understanding of a notion like the abusive dominant position in the
> management of digital resources. And the judgment that this court will
> make, will be made on the basis of the procedure of elaboration of the
> policies of Afrinic or on the basis of a similar text in force in Mauritius?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 29.12.2017, 18:44, "Andrew Alston" <andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com>:
>
> Just to clarify,
>
>
>
> You are incorrect in your assessment.  You are correct that Mauritian law
> only effects those domiciled in Mauritius EXCEPT:
>
>
>
>    1. AFRINIC is domiciled in Mauritius – and subject to Mauritian law in
>    all actions.
>    2. The Mauritian competitions act states explicitly that it reserves
>    the right to sanction companies who are in violation of anti-trust outside
>    of its borders (I would presume this would mean that said companies may
>    find themselves barred from doing business in Mauritius – but it’s a little
>    unclear)
>    3. If AFRINIC’s actions as a Mauritian domiciled company run afoul of
>    Mauritian law – it is that law that they are subject to – irrespective of
>    where those actions are taken.
>
>
>
> Yes – theoretically – AFRINIC could move to another country – however –
> that would probably not be looked at terribly favourably by the Mauritian
> entities – companies that deliberately try to evade the law end up with
> directors in lots of hot water.  Furthermore – the MoU that AFRINIC signed
> to create itself, if I remember correctly, explicitly states that it will
> be domiciled in Mauritius and lists a ton of reasons why – changing that –
> would not be simple.
>
>
>
> Let us test this now – if myself and the other petitions are wrong – no
> harm no foul – and no one has anything to be scared of – however – the time
> for that test is nigh – let us see
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at yandex.com>
> *Date: *Friday, 29 December 2017 at 11:16
> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>, rpd <
> rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition
>
>
>
> Alors là on se retrouve dans une berezina. Ceux qui se sont investis à
> imposer leur vision, faute d'avoir réussi, s'adresse maintenant à une
> juridiction mauricienne. Une fois encore, se pose la question de la qualité
> de cette juridiction de statuer sur une cause concernant l'ensemble des
> pays africains et une partie de l'océan indien. Si cette cour à une
> compétence nationale, le verdict qu'elle rendra concernera t elle seulement
> les ressources numériques qui seront allouées dans sa zone d'influence
> c'est-à-dire l'Ile Maurice (au cas où elle ordonnait l'abrogation de cette
> proposition de politique)? En plus, peut-on ester en justice contre un
> projet de loi ou une proposition de règlement non encore ratifiée ou
> promulguée? Tout ceci dénote une procédure un peu cavalière, corollaire
> d'un acharnement non justifié contre la décision prise par le groupe de
> travail dirigé par les 2 co-présidents. Concernant les lois de mon pays,
> aucune juridiction d'Ile Maurice n'a ni la compétence matérielle encore
> moins la compétence territoriale de juger une cause portant sur les
> modalités d'attributions des ressources numériques destinés entr'autres à
> des requérants résidents en République Démocratique du Congo (surtout que
> nous sommes affiliés à l'OHADA pour le droit des affaires). Concernant,
> toute ressource pouvant être allouée à une entité ou personne vivant en
> RDC, toute décision prise par cette juridiction serait de nul effet.
>
>
>
> KANGAMUTIMA ZABIKA
>
>
>
> 29.12.2017, 17:56, "Andrew Alston" <andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com>:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> Everything stated here is done in my personal capacity and is not
> necessarily representative of the views of any organization to which I am
> affiliated.
>
>
>
> It is a sad day when it comes to this – but due to the significant
> business risks imposed by the potential ratification of the soft-landing
> policy, and the boards lack of response to repeated queries as to AFRINIC’s
> violation of Mauritian law – the time has come to now test these potential
> violations and to see if there is any recourse.
>
>
>
> Since this document contains direct reference to issues of policy that
> would normally fall under the RPD – I am sending this to the list.  Those
> who wish to join the petition to the competitions tribunal can print this –
> sign it – and scan it back to me.  This document will be submitted to the
> competitions tribunal within the next 14 days – to give people a chance to
> digest its contents and decide for themselves if they believe they wish to
> be party to this action.
>
>
>
> Note: As per the rules of the competitions tribunal – any signatory on
> these documents will be confidential and the names of the complainants will
> not be disclosed to AFRINIC – so there is no risk of victimization here.
> Any signed copies received by myself shall be held in strictest confidence
> other than for the purposes of submission to the commission.
>
>
>
> Please also note – the submission of this petition shall in no way
> prejudice the right to potential litigation against AFRINIC should
> companies and individuals feel that such is warranted.
>
>
>
> Yours Sincerely
>
>
>
> Andrew Alston
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ,
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> KANGAMUTIMA  ZABIKA
>
> Contrôleur des douanes
>
> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
>
> Direction Générale des Douanes et
>
> Accises
>
> DRC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> KANGAMUTIMA  ZABIKA
>
> Contrôleur des douanes
>
> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
>
> Direction Générale des Douanes et
>
> Accises
>
> DRC
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> KANGAMUTIMA  ZABIKA
> Contrôleur des douanes
> Direction des Systèmes et Technologies de l'Information
> Direction Générale des Douanes et
> Accises
> DRC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171230/5087c054/attachment-0001.html>