[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jun 25, 2021, at 23:29 , Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> 

> Hey Ronald,

> 

> You are spot on.....

> 

> I have always argued that every single IPv4 integer that numbers a NIC on some router/server on this continent, goes to have a profound socio-economic impact, whether its some unemployed AFRINIC youth who has figured that they can run a small ecommerce business off a local ecommerce platform or a Telecom/ISP that is doing what it takes to get every single AFRICAN connected to the Internet on the AFRICAN Continent.

> 

> Folk got guts out here openly telling folks that we ought to turn intergers into a commodity worthy some 30USD.



> 

> My question to AFRINIC, do your resource members justification for IPv4 needs, include that of running IPv4 Leasing? 


Virtually every LIR leases addresses in one form or another. What is your exact definition of leasing in this context?
What definition do you (apparently) feel should be or is precluded by policy?
If you feel that some definition is precluded by policy, please point to the relevant policy by section number in the CPM.


> Does AFRINIC have IPv4 brokers as resource members?


Are you saying that an LIR who is also a broker is not entitled to membership for some reason? Unless that is your claim,
what is the point of this question?


> Because it seems to me that folk out here are arguing that IPv4 integers themselves are meant to be some product sold at 30USD.


Whether you like it or not, whether I like it or not (and I’m not overly fond of it), the reality is that IP address registrations (not the
addresses themselves, actually) are being bought and sold for ~30USD each every day all over the world.  I held out against this
longer than virtually anyone else in the ARIN region, but eventually even I had to face the reality that the sale of IP address
registrations was going to be a reality and the question was whether it would include updates to WHOIS or simply become
a way in which the registry became progressively less meaningful/less useful over time.

What we were able to do is somewhat (even mostly in most regions) preserve the needs basis for receiving addresses
even if received through a purchase.


> My understanding was that the need for IPv4 was for the intergers to be used by the requester to number infrastructure for their networks/systems and their downstram customers/users so as to offer a wide range on services/products that Impact AFRICA's socio-economically and politically from, NREN, Higher Learning Institutions, Agriculture, ISP/Telecoms, Egovernment, FINTECH, SME's, Ecommerce (I know of unemployed youth leveraging the power of online platforms to forge a decent life and economically empower themselves through ecommorce, entertainment, influencers etc). The true digital transformation if you will.

> 

> So I really need to understand what Paul is going on about to ascertain what I view as clear misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what AFRINIC is all about.


Here’s where you lose me. I have tremendous difficulty connecting your mostly rational questions/statements above with this. Please point to the part of the bylaws, RSA, or CPM that constrains number usage to things which impact AFRICA socio-economically or politically. I don’t recall seeing either of those terms in any of the three documents. It’s certainly not contained in section 6 of the bylaws.

[snip]
RFG’s early post about members which have no nexus in the region being the “clearly prohibited” case.
[/snip]


Note that Ronald makes it clear that entities which have no nexus in the AFRINIC service
region should not be eligible for membership. However, that’s not what Paul’s question was
about. We’ll call that the “clearly prohibited” case.

The obviously “permitted” case is an entity which operates exclusively within the AFRINIC
region.

The gray area in between those two extremes is where clarification appears to be sought.

AFRINIC has been claiming that entities with operations both within and outside of the
AFRINIC service region should not be allowed to use their AFRINIC resources on their
infrastructure outside fo the AFRINIC region.

IMHO (and others share this opinion), section 6 of the bylaws does not provide a basis
for AFRINIC to make such a claim. IMHO, one meets the requirements of section 6 if
one merely has a business presence (legal nexus) within the AFRINIC service region
and some amount of operations there. It does not matter whether that is the majority
of ones operations, a tiny fraction, or what. As long as one:
	1.	Is domiciled within the region (legal nexus).
	2.	Has some operations (including infrastructure) within the region.
and	3.	Provides some services within the region.

Then one meets the tests of section 6 of the bylaws as currently written, regardless
of what portion of one’s network are numbered using AFRINIC resources and regardless
of what fraction of your (pre-soft-landing-phase-2) resources are used elsewhere.

If the membership wants to change that, then there is a process for updating the
bylaws, but until that update happens, there is a need for clarity from AFRINIC on
whether they intend to continue to pursue their previously stated misinterpretations
of the bylaws requiring ALL usage to be in-region.

I won’t presume to speak for Paul, but I do know that Paul has operations both
inside the AFRINIC region and outside, so perhaps that is what “Paul is going
on about”. I’m sure he can clarify if I am wrong.

Owen