[rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition

[Kofi ANSA AKUFO]

Well Andrew thats your opinion and I do respect that.

What I find bizarre in all this is *everyone promoting POLICY but nobody
empowered to POLICE or followup with regular check and compliance*. Times
have evolved and AFRINIC cant just be performing passive duties of dishing
out number resources with reference to instantaneous policy application.

*POLICY without strong ties to continuous POLICE has never served the
AFRICAN AGENDA.*

Yes think of the AFRICAN father who is willing to give out his daughter to
a man to marry [of course he has to be handsome we dont want any Zombies in
the family :) ] and give him considerable acres of land to settle down and
develop the community provided he will take very good care of his daughter.
Nobody would allow his/her daughter and land to me maltreated or exploited.

*Again POLICY without strong ties to continuous POLICE has never served the
AFRICAN AGENDA.*

Goodnight Andrew ... come on get some rest :)

cheers

K.


On 30 December 2017 at 22:54, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> wrote:

> Kofi,
>
>
>
> You and I are in 100% agreement on this – and it is the promotion of the
> African agenda that I seek as do you.
>
>
>
> I simply argue that stopping legitimate African entities that have
> invested hundreds of millions from getting the space they need to actually
> roll that infrastructure to the consumer is harmful to the African people,
> and actually does the external companies who are coming in with external
> resources they can buy from outside a huge favour.  It disadvantages the
> African company, and hence the African consumer.  I have raised this time
> and again at meeting after meeting over the soft landing policies – and the
> authors have **never** addressed this.
>
>
>
> The reality is this – Let us say that a company like Cogent wanted to come
> to Africa and build a network here – and start offering services.  They are
> ARIN region based – they have access to the transfer market – they have a
> US network so they can use a portion of their space off continent – and
> they can buy in as much space on the secondary market as they like to
> facilitate numbering their hypothetical new network.
>
>
>
> Now, lets look at the African company – it has an African presence – it
> uses AfriNIC has a registry – it invests 100 million dollars building
> infrastructure on the continent – fiber across borders – public wifi
> hotspots – FTTH – you name it – then it comes time to actually deploy this
> infrastructure to the people and start connecting consumers.  They are told
> – sorry – you can only have a /18 in 24 months.  Guess what – their
> infrastructure investment is null and avoid – because a /18 simply won’t
> cut it.  So – what does the African company do – either they take their
> operations – register off continent – and domicile in Europe – and start
> using RIPE – in which case you better believe once they get that right that
> money will be flowing off the continent at a rate of knots since they now
> have the option to push the money out – or – in the absence of any way to
> get resources – they close up shop and find something else to do.
>
>
>
> If there was a full transfer policy – the implications of soft landing
> would not be so horrendous – but we do not have one – and a transfer policy
> inside Africa is meaningless – because there simply aren’t sellers around –
> trust me – I’ve looked.  All the internal transfer policy has done has
> allowed the poor who are drastically lacking resources – to sell what they
> do not have – it is pretty meaningless.  If the soft landing policy let
> individuals come back for space as they needed it with no limits as to how
> many times provided they could prove usage of the previous block and
> allowed a decent minimum block size (/16 minimum) – again no big deal – it
> would be ok – but it does not do that.  What it currently states is – you
> get a /18 and even if you can prove you have connected every single IP
> address with a customer in Africa – you may not continue to connect
> customers – you are out of luck – and so are the customers in the region
> you are operating in.
>
>
>
> The policy penalizes the CONSUMER – it penalizes the AFRICAN INDIVIDUAL –
> it advantages the international company – and time after time after time
> myself and others have said this – and never have these things been
> addressed by the authors – yet still consensus is declared despite open and
> unaddressed issues.
>
>
>
> If anyone really believed that a policy like this – which stops African
> companies from operating in Africa once they get to a certain size – would
> pass and not face resistance that would go as far as is necessary to allow
> those African companies to continue to grow and thrive to the benefit of
> the African consumer and the African economy – then I say that was
> incredibly naive and shows a total lack of understanding of the industry
> and of business reality.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Kofi ANSA AKUFO <kofi.ansa at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, 30 December 2017 at 15:32
> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> *Cc: *Kangamutima zabika Christophe <funga.roho at yandex.com>, rpd <
> rpd at afrinic.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition
>
>
>
> Andrew dont get me wrong.
>
>
>
> I am not taking sides here and not referring to Liquid Telecom :)  ...
> maybe the other company :)
>
>
>
> What I am saying is lets decouple the requirements of being an entity duly
> registered on the AFRICAN continent  to gain resources and rather focus on
> how to marry infrastructure and economic development in our region with
> allocation of our digital resources. That promotes the AFRICAN AGENDA
> without locking prospective entities outside our region from business
> development in our region.
>
>
>
> Well thats my opinion.
>
>
>
> cheers
>
>
>
> On 30 December 2017 at 21:23, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.
> com> wrote:
>
> Kofi,
>
>
>
> I can explain why some of the large carriers register their space in
> centralized locations - though this does not hold for all.
>
>
>
> Consolidation of resources saves money - because of the fee structure it
> is far far far cheaper to consolidate all the resources into a holding
> company and then sub assign down to their relevant African operational
> companies than to have each operational company hold their own resources.
>
>
>
> It is no secret that Liquid holds most of its space in Mauritius - it’s in
> the Whois database afterall.
>
>
>
> However - I challenge you to find space we are using off continent other
> than a few point to points or one or two /24s which were necessary to
> facilitate communications back to the continent.
>
>
>
> What I find more bizarre is that one of the authors of this policy is the
> CEO of a company that has had space for 9 years and in those 9 years has
> never announced more than 25% of that space into the global routing table.
>
>
>
> What I find even more bizarre is that one of the most vocal proponents of
> this policy works for an organization that holds a /12 (again out of
> Mauritius) but at the time of receiving that space had no enterprise
> business - it was a wholesale operation providing transit to those who had
> ASNs and space - how did they get that space? It is a mystery to me.
>
>
>
> Go through and look at those who support this policy vs those that don’t -
> look at their ip holdings - look at their ip utilization levels - look at
> the industries that employ them - You may find some very interesting
> statistics if you do some homework
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Kofi ANSA AKUFO <kofi.ansa at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 30, 2017 3:11:21 PM
> *To:* Kangamutima zabika Christophe
> *Cc:* Andrew Alston; rpd
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Competitions Tribunal Petition
>
>
>
> 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/dbaee191/attachment-0001.html>