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

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] ARIN without Owen Delong ?

Owen DeLong owen at
Sat Jul 17 02:02:58 UTC 2021

> On Jul 15, 2021, at 15:19 , Noah <noah at> wrote:


> Owen,


> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 13:56, Owen DeLong <owen at <mailto:owen at>> wrote:


> In general, I select clients who are generally ideologically aligned with me.


> And what is your so-called Ideology? besides making a living out of consultancy?

That’s a complicated question, but I assure you that making a living out of consultancy actually isn’t part of that ideology. Making a living is a purely pragmatic matter. Had I been financially wiser in my youth, I would no longer be depending on fees for my services in order to survive. Alas, finance has never been my strong suit nor my primary motivator and as a result, I am still working for money rather than the other way around.

The best way to understand my ideology as regards number resource policy and how it has evolved over the years is to review my public record and my voting record on the ARIN AC.

> One exception is Cloud Innovation.

> While I am not ideologically 100% in agreement with them and do not necessarily favor the current state of policy which benefits them


> So you consult for Cloud Innovation yet you are not 100% ideologically in agreement with the very company you consult for????

Yes. Nobody is 100% ideologically in agreement with me, most likely. Many areas where I agree with Cloud Innovation. Some areas where I do not. Lu and I are open and honest with each other about where we agree and where we disagree and there is no expectation inherent in my contract that I will alter my views or express views that I don’t agree with, so we are able to make it work.

While I don’t necessarily like some of the ways in which Lu has gone about utilizing the address space he obtained from AFRINIC, a plain text reading of the governing documents (CPM, RSA, bylaws) leaves me no choice but to agree that his use is compliant with the applicable policies and that his company has acted in good faith and compliance with the rules as they are written. I am not personally entirely convinced that leasing is either good or bad for the community. However, I am convinced that the policies as currently written do not preclude it.

> And when you say "current state of policy benefits them" meaning (Cloud Innovation), what do you exactly mean?

I mean the fact that the policy as written does not preclude leasing and does not prohibit (or even limit) out of region use except for registrations issued after the beginning of exhaustion phase 1 in the soft landing policy. I would have thought that self evident by now.

I am of mixed emotions on both of these issues. I am ambivalent at best on leasing. On out of region use, I would love to see a way to address it that didn’t come with collateral damage that would make the cure worse than the disease, but so far no such option has presented itself. The aborted attempt at such a policy some years ago in this community provided a pretty substantial review of just how thorny the issue is and how rapidly it devolves into corner cases that are difficult to address.

In the end, the community did not come to consensus to adopt such a policy and it was withdrawn by the author.

The community has never (to the best of my knowledge) made any effort to even consider a policy prohibiting leasing, even in light of recent events. One would think that the easiest way for the community to stop leasing, if they truly found it so objectionable, would be to prohibit it in policy, yet there is still not so much as a policy proposal submitted towards this end.

As such, it sounds to me like a few vociferous people wish to whine about ideology while refusing to take action to make the rules actually consistent with their supposed views.

At least when I take issue with a policy or other rule or even a proposal, I offer concrete alternatives (which admittedly in some cases is to simply claim the status quo is superior to the proposed alternative). Such is the case in my reaction to the boards Appeal Committee land grab. I offered very concrete suggestions for an alternative which could yield a properly independent appellate body.

The issues in this case are not whether I agree with Lu and what he is doing or not. The issues are whether or not AFRINIC as a body and the AFRINIC board and staff will comply with their own rules as written and as developed by the members and the community or whether they are free to run amok and create rules from whole cloth.

It is the importance of following the rules as written where my client Cloud Innovation and I are ideologically aligned and what I consider the most important aspect of this case. I really had high hopes that AFRINIC would take this more seriously when we tried to resolve it amicably before involving the courts, but I failed in my attempt to communicate this and alas, egos were bruised, respect was lost, and the situation degraded farther than I had ever thought possible.

I will also point out that Cloud Innovation is not my only client in the region and my clients are not the only ones potentially harmed by AFRINIC’s failure to follow its own rules here. Whether you agree with me or not, whether you like what I say or not, I have always tried to act in what I believe to be the best interests of the community and I will always continue to do so.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list