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

[rpd] Was - Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" informations update

Benjamin Ledoh benjamin.ledoh at
Sun May 12 19:30:25 UTC 2019

Dear Community,

Marcus asked simple questions to Melvin. I was expecting Melvin to respond
but as usual, Owen jumped with his blablabla. We all know that Owen has no
company in the Africa Region; he has no interest in this policy and every
time he is defend or support policy that could destroy Afrinic. It is not a
secret that he hates Afrinic and now is on mission (for a pay master -- I
stand to be corrected). The less I say, the better for this community.

The pathetic aspect in this is the submission of Daniel. Brother Dan, in
Yoruba, there is a say: "You don't team up with opponents to vandalize your
family's property". To a wise, a word is enough.

By the way, I am looking for sponsorship to travel to Kampala to attend
AIS. Can you be of help? Can you direct me to any foundation? I hope you
will take it cool. (LOL)



On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 6:03 PM Daniel Yakmut via RPD <rpd at>

> Owen,
> Indeed you gave the point blank solution to what I personally have been
> advocating.
> Cheers
> Daniel
> On Sun, May 12, 2019, 6:14 PM Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
>> On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at>
>> wrote:
>> Hi Melvin
>> *I can see you suddenly  have interests for the review policy proposal.
>> Please review  RPD  and PPMs  archives as it is not  productive to replay
>> old discussions.*
>> *Please could you provide answers to the following questions *
>> > This policy has a lot of problems.
>> *It is not constructive in a working group to just say policy has a lot
>> of problems without listing the problems you see. Please list all the
>> problems and propose texts to address them?*
>> It is not legitimate to insist that those who feel your proposal is
>> flawed must provide text to address those problems. However, let me propose
>> text which would solve all of the problems with this policy so that it
>> cannot be said that I did not do so…
>> Please replace the entire proposal with the what is between the BEGIN and
>> END tags below. That will solve all of the problems:
>> —— BEGIN ——
>> —— END ——
>> I think you must agree that this text is very succinct and does not
>> create any new policy problems like the current proposal.
>> While it may not solve all of the problems you intend with your current
>> problem statement, I believe it does, in fact, solve all of the material
>> defects of this proposal and offers a vastly superior policy alternative.
>> (In other words: current policy is a vastly superior policy alternative to
>> the current proposal).
>> > The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
>> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
>> the review.
>> *Please show which part of policy proposal requires disconnecting end
>> users?  The numbers are requested and allocated to serve end-users and I
>> don't see how review will lead to disconnecting these users.*
>> Marcus, are you truly so divorced from reality that you do not understand
>> that if you successfully and effectively revoke the resources of an ISP
>> that by definition, you have disconnected the customers of said ISP that
>> were using those resources?
>> If not, then I can only assume that you believe that any such revocation
>> will be without actual effect on the internet. If you truly believe that,
>> then you believe that it is OK to render the AfriNIC registration process
>> meaningless compared to operational practice and you wish to create a
>> separation between the two. I realize that currently the two are joined
>> only through the voluntary cooperation of ISPs, but I think it is
>> irresponsible at best to attempt to end that cooperation.
>> Owen
>> Thanks
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Melvin Cheng <melvinc0730 at>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM
>> *To:* rpd at
>> *Subject:* [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources
>> review by AFRINIC" informations update
>> Hi
>> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think that if an
>> issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be something
>> fundamentally wrong about it. It’s quite obvious that this proposal draws
>> way more controversy than the others - its own existence in a way seems to
>> be a source of extreme disputes among the community, as we have seen in
>> Tunisia. I was in fact there myself.
>> This policy has a lot of problems. Intrinsically, as a policy itself, it
>> is not well defined. A lot of terms remain unclear. For example, as Owen
>> has also pointed out earlier, the term “annual meaningful report” is an
>> ambiguous term. What is a “meaningful” report? To whom? What are the
>> factors? How is “meaningful” defined? 100 people can have 100 definitions
>> of “meaningful”. If the report is deemed as something crucial to this
>> proposal, then the author shall better define and address it. Honestly
>> speaking, although this proposal has been “re-proposed” over and over, I do
>> not see any improvements in it. More precisely, I barely see any changes
>> made in the new proposal when comparing to the previous one. I would expect
>> the authors to make some adjustments when so many issues have not been
>> addressed in previous meetings before they posted them again, even just as
>> gesture of their sincerity. You can’t just post something that’s almost
>> identical by pretending your audience were blind.
>> On the other hand, this policy is not realistic at all. Afrinic does not
>> have the financial power to conduct such a big quantity of reviews within
>> its regions. It’s quiet easy to imagine that because of this lack of
>> financial backup, reviews are done unfairly and unjustly. For example, some
>> users are screened while the others are not because Afrinic runs out of
>> money during the process of review. This may, at the worst, can lead to
>> Afrinic’s bankruptcy, which I am sure none of us would wish that to happen.
>> The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to the
>> review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue about
>> the review. However, according to this proposal, if an ISP is found to have
>> violated the rule (ie, inefficient utilisation of resources), their IPs
>> will be taken back by Afrinic and re-allocate to others. End-user will lost
>> connectivity to the Internet during this process even they have no idea
>> what is going on. This is unfair to them. After all, connectivity to the
>> Internet shall come as the priority over any other things. What this policy
>> will bring is quiet the opposite.
>> Having said so much, I think my stand is quite clear. This proposal is
>> not well drafted and the authors haven’t well considered its potential
>> problems. It’s impractical when considering Afrinic’s current situation.
>> Let’s not forget about this. if something has been doubted by people over
>> and over again, there must be something wrong about it.
>> Cheers
>> Melvin
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list