Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Unaddressed queries by AFRINIC during AGMM
pascosoft at gmail.com
Sat Jun 26 09:39:37 UTC 2021
On Saturday, June 26, 2021, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <
community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote:
> > 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
> 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.
> RFG’s early post about members which have no nexus in the region being the
> “clearly prohibited” case.
> 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
> 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
> and 3. Provides some services within the region.
> Then one meets the tests of section 6 of the bylaws as currently written,
> of what portion of one’s network are numbered using AFRINIC resources and
> of what fraction of your (pre-soft-landing-phase-2) resources are used
> 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
> 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
> inside the AFRINIC region and outside, so perhaps that is what “Paul is
> on about”. I’m sure he can clarify if I am wrong.
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD