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

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

Owen DeLong owen at
Fri Jul 2 11:42:47 UTC 2021

> On Jul 2, 2021, at 04:23 , Bill Woodcock <woody at> wrote:


>> On 2 Jul 2021, at 11:49, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:

>> Let’s say that [an ISP in Mauritius] also operates an IP Brokerage in the Netherlands trading in allocations/assignments issued by RIPE-NCC and operating entirely within the RIPE-NCC policies.


>> Would you still say that it’s legal OK for AFRINIC to reject/terminate the membership of the one operating the brokerage in the Netherlands on that basis?


> I believe the point that Mike is making (which I agree with, I don’t think he needs me to reinterpret his already-clear explanation of his thoughts, I’m just registering agreement in my own words) is that, yes, an association can reject the membership of anyone they feel like, particularly if they do so on clear, objective, and transparent grounds.


> That’s the difference between an association and a class. The class of “ISPs in Mauritius” includes all ISPs in Mauritius. An association of ISPs in Mauritius can include, or not include, anyone… That’s what an association is: a group of parties who freely choose to associate with each other. If someone can be forced upon them, it’s no longer a free choice to associate, so it’s no longer an association.


> What, may I ask, is your point in arguing that AfriNIC should not be able to define its own membership?

I think that, rather than arguing that they cannot define their membership, I am arguing that if they were to do so on such arbitrary and capricious lines as whether or not said organization is also an address broker in distant lands doesn’t meet the “clear, objective and transparent” test very well.

Assuming that even in the simple case of a single organization, it does meet the test, then one has to consider the following easy derivatives:

An organization which happens to have a wholly owned subsidiary that is a broker
An organization which isn’t a broker, but happens to be the wholly owned subsidiary of a broker
An organization which is owned by an entity which also owns such a broker

For any “clear, objective, and transparent” version of such a prohibition, I’m pretty sure it’s relatively trivial to design a structure that is just grey enough to become “shaded, subjective, and translucent at best”.


More information about the RPD mailing list