<div><div dir="auto">Hello Fernando</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I don’t think you’re addressing my questions, rather, you have your set of belief (and we do have our way of thinking, which is fine, but we shouldn’t try to impose our thoughts on others when your say is a “point of view” rather than “a fact”) that IP leasing is wrong while overlooking that the fact that there is never a body that prohibits it. I mean, the CPM doesn’t - the law doesn’t - never really does except some sort of people simply “do not agree” because they think its “wrong”. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The CPM doesn’t - </div><div dir="auto">“If you don't see in the CPM and with the different explanations that have been given here in the discussion I am sorry you failed to understand (maybe because you or other do not wish to understand it). Perhaps you are expecting some specific set of words in the CPM that are not there, but the important part is staff to interpret that IP Leasing means the current resource holder is using the addresses in a different way from what they have been justified initially and resources may be subject to revocation. “ - if the CPM really does, then it shouldn’t be an “interpretation” or “explanation” but rather a clear and precise definition that “IP leasing” is not allowed. In fact what is the actual case is that the CPM, when it’s written, never take into account the situation of IP leasing. It’s just like people are trying to use Victorian laws to interpret modern matters, when the Victorians don’t even have that thing in mind. If I follow your logic, that we keep “interpretating” the CPM, then I’m sure 100 people will have 100 ways of interpretation. What is at stake here is that we don’t try to label opinions as facts.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Additionally, it’s been quite obvious that <span style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">a number of “senior” community members have the tendency to think what they say is right,  but that’s really not the case. The purpose of this community is to give people the ability to express their various opinions and not to dictate or impose their opinions as “right” on others. </span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><span style="border-color:rgb(0,0,0)">Elvis </span></div></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:30 Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
  
    
  
  <div>
    <p>Some people seem to try to justify that IP Leasing as something
      normal "because they need or depend on that" or "because it earns
      money leasing addresses to other organizations" or "because it is
      a functional way to bypass the current exhaustion phases of some
      RIRs". None of that is a justification for something that keeps
      being wrong. It is not because it works well for some that it has
      to be something acceptable by the current rules. Depending on IP
      Leasing does not make it right or acceptable in terms of
      justification.</p>
    <p>If you don't see in the CPM and with the different explanations
      that have been given here in the discussion I am sorry you failed
      to understand (maybe because you or other do not wish to
      understand it). Perhaps you are expecting some specific set of
      words in the CPM that are not there, but the important part is
      staff to interpret that IP Leasing means the current resource
      holder is using the addresses in a different way from what they
      have been justified initially and resources may be subject to
      revocation. Can you justify resources saying you need them because
      you intend to lease them ? No you can't.</p></div><div><p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Fernando<br>
    </p>
    <div>On 02/07/2021 18:49, Ibeanusi Elvis
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      
      <div dir="auto">Hello Fernando, </div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">In your previous email, you outlined “relying on
        the WRONG OPTION”. Again, like you’ve been asked, what are you
        criteria or justification for what constitutes a “wrong option”.
        Also, I don’t see where the CPM prohibits IP Leasing and based
        on what you said earlier, what about the consequences of the end
        user losing connectivity?. </div>
      <div dir="auto"><br>
      </div>
      <div dir="auto">Elvis. </div>
      <div><br>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 5:28
            Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
            <div>
              <p>Perhaps you may not be used with the way numbering
                resources are allocated and must be used. This is not a
                simple internal network usage thing that any company can
                decide at will.<br>
                Anyone holding these resources MUST use them in
                according to the current rules and MUST justify and
                *keep justifying that usage* permanently in order to be
                able to keep holding those resources - which by the way
                is not something the belongs to the organization.</p>
              <p>Bizarre is to get resources form the RIR, not use them
                for what they have been justified originally and bypass
                that justification giving them to allow someone to
                bypass the current rules of a RIR.<br>
                If any organization is holding resources which it
                doesn't justify anymore it either gives it back to
                AfriNic or transfer to another organization who have
                usage and justify for that.<br>
                IP Leasing is a clear way to show the RIR and Community
                that resource holder doesn't justify to keep that IP
                space to anymore.</p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p><br>
              </p>
              <p>Fernando<br>
              </p>
              <div>On 02/07/2021 15:45, Mimi dy wrote:<br>
              </div>
              <blockquote type="cite">
                <div dir="ltr">Hi Fernando,<span> </span><br>
                  <br>
                  I am wondering what basis do you use to define “a
                  wrong option”? And who gave you, or me or the
                  community the right to determine how networks are
                  used? Does the CPM entitle us the right to tell a
                  certain company; “you have the option to use Inter RIR
                  transfer policy”? I may have missed that, but please
                  point out to me where the CPM gives us  the right to
                  intervene with others and their networks just because
                  we do not like it.<br>
                  <div>That is just bizarre. </div>
                  <div><br>
                  </div>
                  <div>Best,</div>
                </div>
                <br>
                <div class="gmail_quote">
                  <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 2 juil. 2021
                    à 18:39, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
                    a écrit :<br>
                  </div>
                  <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">
                    <div>
                      <p>So they are relying on a wrong option which
                        should never have relied. <br>
                        If they have needs for IPv4 (as everybody else)
                        and they cannot get these addresses directly
                        from the RIR as per the current rules which
                        apply equally to everybody they have the option
                        to use Inter-RIR transfer policy available on
                        all other RIRs.<br>
                        <br>
                        If these organizations are from outside Africa
                        region then it is even worst they grab unused
                        addressed that were assigned to a local company
                        to use somewhere else out of the region.</p>
                      <p>Not everything that is useful or convenient to
                        some is correct and as such should e stimulated
                        and IP leasing mean the current holder doesn't
                        justify for those addresses anymore, so either
                        it gives it back to AfriNic or transfer them
                        definitely.</p>
                      <p>Regards<br>
                        Fernando<br>
                      </p>
                      <div>On 02/07/2021 14:29, Mimi dy wrote:<br>
                      </div>
                      <blockquote type="cite">
                        <div dir="ltr">
                          <div dir="ltr">Hello Fernando, </div>
                          <div dir="ltr"><br>
                          </div>
                          <div dir="ltr">
                            <div>Many organizations rely on IP Leasing
                              in order to acquire number resources
                              quickly and affordably to meet their
                              current and future needs. It is totally
                              legit, especially during the IPv4
                              exhaustion phase, where resource scarcity
                              represents a real issue for ISPs and
                              network-holders in AFRINIC's service area.</div>
                            <div>I find it absurd that you are arguing
                              against IP leasing when it is a legal and
                              accurate way to obtain IPs. Indeed, there
                              are some malicious organizations out there
                              misusing leased IPs, but that is certainly
                              not the case for everyone, so no need to
                              generalize. Consequently, you cannot
                              really dismiss IP leasing using weak
                              arguments as such. </div>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <div>Since IP leasing is very helpful to
                              numerous entities in the period of
                              shortage of available IP addresses, and is
                              certainly legal, I fail to understand why
                              you are advocating against it. </div>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <div>Best,</div>
                            <div><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"></span></div>
                            <div><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
                              </span></div>
                            <div><br>
                            </div>
                            <div><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
                              </span></div>
                            <div><span style="font-size:16px;font-family:Gotham,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
                              </span></div>
                          </div>
                          <br>
                          <div class="gmail_quote">
                            <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 2
                              juil. 2021 à 16:48, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
                              a écrit :<br>
                            </div>
                            <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)">Well,
                              like it or not but having a customer that
                              is in the leasing <br>
                              business may effectively change our
                              opinion about some subject, even if <br>
                              personally you wish it may not to.<br>
                              <br>
                              Trying to find an exact 'ipsis literis'
                              word in the CPM that fulfill or <br>
                              not your expectations may not always work.
                              There is always room for some <br>
                              interpretation and staff is the one
                              responsible to do that in this context.<br>
                              For the absurd leasing possibility is very
                              simple: if leasing proposes <br>
                              cannot be used as a justification to
                              receive a new block from the RIR <br>
                              why would it be after you receive it and
                              missuse it for different <br>
                              proposes other than bring connectivity to
                              your customers. In that sense <br>
                              I really hope staff stand strong in
                              revoking resources that are being <br>
                              used for leasing proposes, different from
                              what they have been justified <br>
                              originally and if necessary fight in
                              courts of Mauritius to have that <br>
                              decision preserved.<br>
                              <br>
                              For out of the region usage there have
                              been multiple people who showed <br>
                              that is not currently permitted. Maybe you
                              don't agree with that but <br>
                              bottom line is that is what staff has been
                              interpreting from the current <br>
                              rules backed by what some of us  have put
                              here based in previous messages.<br>
                              <br>
                              Want to use AfriNic resources in a
                              different region ? Simply transfer <br>
                              them permanently using the soon-to-come
                              Inter-RIR transfer policy and <br>
                              bound to the rules of the new RIR.<br>
                              <br>
                              Regards<br>
                              Fernando<br>
                              <br>
                              On 02/07/2021 04:46, Owen DeLong via RPD
                              wrote:<br>
                              > Full disclosure: I don’t personally
                              have a dog in this fight. I am personally<br>
                              > agnostic as to whether leasing should
                              or should not be permitted in a<br>
                              > newly developed policy.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > I do have a client that I consult for
                              which is in the leasing business. It is my<br>
                              > opinion that their leasing business
                              is 100% compliant with policy as it is<br>
                              > written and that if the community
                              doesn’t like that fact, the community can<br>
                              > and should certainly amend the policy
                              to rectify the situation.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> On Jun 29, 2021, at 03:08 , Frank
                              Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>>
                              wrote:<br>
                              >><br>
                              >> Hi,<br>
                              >><br>
                              >> On 29/06/2021 12:01, Owen DeLong
                              via RPD wrote:<br>
                              >>> nectivity customers or use
                              out of the region as something "normal and<br>
                              >>> acceptable".<br>
                              >>><br>
                              >>> Regardless of who does and
                              does not benefit, the reality is that
                              short<br>
                              >>> of an actual government with
                              the ability to enforce its rules using<br>
                              >>> guns and prisons, people who
                              can make a profit are going to do what<br>
                              >>> they are going to do.<br>
                              >> I need to break this down.<br>
                              >> I'm working in my $dayjob for one
                              of those companies that are after<br>
                              >> $profit. What this company _did_
                              is subscribe to the methods and rules<br>
                              >> of a Mauritius company called
                              AfriNIC, in order to get Internet<br>
                              >> Numbering Resources. And I think
                              many of the AfriNIC members formally<br>
                              >> subscribed to these rules. (And
                              the rules are subject to change<br>
                              >> according to PDP)<br>
                              >><br>
                              >> These INR are provided to members
                              per need and justification. Relatively<br>
                              >> recently additional rules came
                              into force that limited each allocation<br>
                              >> to maximum /22 - this is how
                              rules can change.<br>
                              >><br>
                              >> INR are delegated to members that
                              need them themselves, and AfriNIC<br>
                              >> calls these members "End-User"
                              members. They are also delegated to<br>
                              >> members that provide internet
                              access to respective customers, and<br>
                              >> AfriNIC calls these members "LIR"
                              members.<br>
                              > You are close, but the term used in
                              the bylaws is “open system protocol<br>
                              > network services”. I am not sure why
                              such awkward and broad language<br>
                              > was chosen, but that’s a much broader
                              definition than “internet access”.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > In the CPM, LIR is defined as “An IR
                              that receives allocations from an RIR and
                              primarily<br>
                              > assigns address space to 'end-users’.
                              LIRs are generally ISPs. Their customers
                              are other<br>
                              > ISPs and possibly end-users. LIRs
                              must be members of AFRINIC.”<br>
                              ><br>
                              > Again, there’s not a single word in
                              that definition that ties it to
                              connectivity<br>
                              > services or internet access.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> I believe in all justifications
                              for IPv4, LIR members request/require<br>
                              >> the addresses to address
                              customers, or servers, or VMs that get<br>
                              >> connectivity services from the
                              LIR member. And there is no problem with<br>
                              >> that. LIR is in the business of
                              making profit, providing connectivity,<br>
                              >> hosting servers, services, needs
                              IPs, gets IPs.<br>
                              > Certainly this is the prevalent
                              model, whether or not it is 100% pervasive<br>
                              > I am not sure.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> There is a big difference to the
                              case where an LIR member<br>
                              >> - has IPv4 address space,<br>
                              >> - is not using it themselves,<br>
                              >> - not for connectivity (or
                              hosting) customers<br>
                              >> and has the IPv4 space used by
                              "customers" that are only getting the<br>
                              >> IPv4 space as a service - sold or
                              leased.<br>
                              > Is there? So long as the customers in
                              question are justifying the space to the<br>
                              > same standards that an end-user
                              applying to the RIR would have to or to
                              the<br>
                              > same standard that would be required
                              if they were also getting connectivity<br>
                              > from the LIR, then what exactly is
                              the difference?<br>
                              ><br>
                              > What if the LIR in question did
                              announce the covering aggregates of space<br>
                              > they leased and provided some minimal
                              connectivity to the customer in question?<br>
                              > Now they meet the definition you’ve
                              provided above, but they’re not actually<br>
                              > moving packets because the
                              more-specific being announced to the
                              customer’s<br>
                              > higher bandwidth providers will win
                              vs. the aggregate.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > Does removing this connectivity fig
                              leaf really change the nature of the<br>
                              > assignment in a meaningful way?<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> Is that the purpose for which the
                              IPv4 space was obtained and justified?<br>
                              > Since I don’t have access to anyone’s
                              IPv4 justifications to AFRINIC in a<br>
                              > manner which would allow me to
                              comment publicly, I’m going to skip this<br>
                              > question. Suffice it to say, I can
                              imagine a number of ways in which this<br>
                              > is possible.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> There are "rules" that say an LIR
                              should notify when use of an IP block<br>
                              >> changes.<br>
                              > Yes. The rules are, however,
                              ambiguous at best and it’s not clear at
                              what<br>
                              > level of detail a “change” is
                              constituted nor is it clear whether an
                              update<br>
                              > to whois is adequate notification in
                              most circumstances.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> I see a big difference between
                              changes *within an LIR* and changes to<br>
                              >> *use the IP space outside the
                              AfriNIC member LIR*.<br>
                              > So if I have space that was allocated
                              to my LIR and I assigned it to<br>
                              > customer A who is using the space in
                              their network (technically outside<br>
                              > of my LIR), but then they return the
                              space when they get their own<br>
                              > block and become a BYOA customer, my
                              assigning that space to customer<br>
                              > B for their use on their network
                              (also outside my LIR) becomes a problem<br>
                              > or change in the usage exactly why?<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> With the first, I consider it
                              generally accepted that justification
                              remains.<br>
                              >> With the latter, I believe that
                              the *LIR that subscribed to AfriNIC<br>
                              >> rules* has shown to no longer
                              have the justification for these IPs for<br>
                              >> connectivity and hosting,
                              including "PA" customers.<br>
                              > What if the justification in question
                              was not “connectivity and hosting”?<br>
                              ><br>
                              > What if the justification was
                              “Numbering hosts on customer networks”?<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> The reason for doing the latter
                              is obviously $profit, and yes - some "<br>
                              >> are going to do what they are
                              going to do ".<br>
                              > The reason for the former was
                              obviously profit, too. Nobody is in
                              business<br>
                              > to subsidize the benefits of others
                              without making a profit.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> And what this community allows
                              them to get away with.<br>
                              > It’s not so much a question of “get
                              away with” as “what the rules actually<br>
                              > say” from my perspective. You may
                              wish to argue that the intent or even<br>
                              > the clear intent of the community is
                              something else, but in reality, for rules
                              to be<br>
                              > useful, one must consider what the
                              rules actually say, and not the current<br>
                              > popular interpretation of intent
                              around the rules.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > Making it up as we go along has
                              become somewhat of an AFRINIC tradition<br>
                              > at this point, seemingly both in the
                              staff actions and in the board, PDWG,<br>
                              > community, and various committees.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > There’s also a pretty strong history
                              of doing so being the source of a great<br>
                              > many problems, so I continue to hope
                              that we can learn from those mistakes<br>
                              > and start actually following the
                              rules as they are written and making the<br>
                              > changes necessary through the proper
                              processes when the rules do not<br>
                              > meet the perceived needs of the
                              current situation.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> To be Frank: I simply don't
                              believe that<br>
                              >> AS212552    "BitCommand" in
                              Armenia gets IP connectivity services from<br>
                              >> ... you know who.<br>
                              > Honestly, I don’t know who, but it’s
                              easy enough to look up:<br>
                              ><br>
                              > <a href="https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_irr" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_irr</a><br>
                              ><br>
                              > Says that they get apparent transit
                              from AS64515 and AS24940.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > This seems to be borne out by <a href="https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_graph4" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bgp.he.net/AS212552#_graph4</a><br>
                              ><br>
                              >> In other continents / RIRs the
                              IPv4 space is finished. Noone has any<br>
                              >> hope of justifying any with the
                              RIR. Some have more than they need -<br>
                              >> give or sell it to others that
                              have "a need" and the market can probably<br>
                              >> regulate that.<br>
                              > ARIN is still issuing /24s under NRPM
                              section 4.10, so that’s not entirely<br>
                              > correct.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> But AfriNIC still has and is
                              distributing IPv4 - should it do so by<br>
                              >> "whoever pays most" or "everyone
                              according to their need [upto a /22<br>
                              >> ;-)]". Has it given IPv4
                              resources to members according to their<br>
                              >> respective (perceived) needs???<br>
                              >><br>
                              >> Wasn't one of the rules that the
                              LIR was to use the IPs for the<br>
                              >> connectivity (or hosting)
                              services?<br>
                              > I’ve reviewed the bylaws, the RSA,
                              and the CPM pretty carefully. I couldn’t<br>
                              > find a connectivity requirement other
                              than one that calls for the numbers<br>
                              > to be “routed on the internet”
                              (which, btw, is a unique requirement in<br>
                              > AFRINIC not present in other RIRs).<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> Are the rules still applicable?<br>
                              > The rules still apply as written, but
                              that’s the real sticking point. Do we<br>
                              > want to focus on the common
                              perception of what we think the rules<br>
                              > say (as you have done above) or do we
                              want to review the rules as<br>
                              > they are written and call for the
                              enforcement of those rules according<br>
                              > to a plain text interpretation of
                              their actual content?<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> bit more below...<br>
                              >><br>
                              >>> I’m not particularly happy
                              about this reality, but I do recognize
                              that<br>
                              >>> it is, in fact, reality and
                              I’m not in favor of giving RIRs guns or<br>
                              >>> the ability to incarcerate
                              people. Contracts only get you so far and<br>
                              >>> clever people can always find
                              ways to comply with the letter of a<br>
                              >>> contract while circumventing
                              the other party's intent if they want to<br>
                              >>> try hard enough.<br>
                              >>><br>
                              >>> So no, these are not “nice
                              words”, they are the recognition of<br>
                              >>> unpleasant and inconvenient
                              truths that like it or not, we are faced<br>
                              >>> with new realities, economic,
                              technical, and legal.<br>
                              >> Is one of these realities that an
                              LIR got resources from AfriNIC for<br>
                              >> providing connectivity (or
                              hosting) services, and now these are no<br>
                              >> longer in place?<br>
                              > I have no knowledge of such a
                              situation, but in truth I have not read<br>
                              > the original justification for the
                              space issued to the LIR I think you<br>
                              > are referring to.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >>> In many countries legal
                              frameworks the lack of a transfer policy<br>
                              >>> allowing registrants to
                              monetize the transfer of their
                              registrations<br>
                              >>> could be considered either
                              restraint of trade or an<br>
                              >>> anti-trust/anti-competitive
                              matter.<br>
                              >> the fact is that these numbers
                              should be unique and centrally managed.<br>
                              >> These anti-trust lawyers can send
                              a better proposal for managing them.<br>
                              > The ability to sell one’s
                              registration to another does not in any
                              way impinge<br>
                              > the central management of numbers for
                              uniqueness.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> The question is whether
                              "according to need" or "according to
                              whoever<br>
                              >> offers more $$".<br>
                              > This assumes that monetized transfers
                              and/or leasing cannot be done<br>
                              > on the basis of need, which is a
                              false premise. To the best of my
                              knowledge,<br>
                              > Larus is quite scrupulous and
                              detailed in collecting need justification
                              from<br>
                              > customers prior to issuing addresses
                              to them. That is certainly the written<br>
                              > company policy and has been the case
                              with each and every recipient<br>
                              > case I have been involved with in my
                              consulting for them.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> Should I be allowed to "buy" a
                              /16 from AfriNIC, put it in a safe, sell<br>
                              >> it 3 years later for $profit ???<br>
                              > No. The rules prohibit you putting it
                              in a safe and not routing it. Also, you<br>
                              > aren’t buying the /16, you are paying
                              a fee for the service of recording and<br>
                              > maintaining the registration of the
                              space. You can’t sell the integers, but<br>
                              > selling the registration of the
                              integers has become common practice<br>
                              > worldwide whether you like it or not.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> Is that the purpose for which
                              AfriNIC got the /8's from IANA?<br>
                              > Things have changed since the IANA
                              was issuing /8s. The world has changed.<br>
                              > Many of the /8s were issued by the
                              IANA in order to support Email, FTP, and<br>
                              > NNTP. I suspect there are very few
                              servers running FTP or NNTP these days,<br>
                              > and while EMAIL is still a pervasive
                              technology (for better or worse), it is
                              not<br>
                              > a significant fraction of internet
                              traffic.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > Very few of the /8s issued by IANA
                              were issued during a time when streaming<br>
                              > video could have been considered as a
                              purpose for issuing them, yet today<br>
                              > it is probably the largest consumer
                              of bandwidth on the internet by far.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > Should we require all of the RIRs
                              that have issued space to Netflix after<br>
                              > IANA runout to reclaim and return
                              that space to IANA and rejustify it
                              because<br>
                              > streaming video was not the purpose
                              for which it was issued?<br>
                              ><br>
                              > I think not.<br>
                              ><br>
                              >> PS: all or most questions are
                              serious. answers will help.<br>
                              > All of the answers were serious as
                              well. I’d expect nothing less from<br>
                              > someone of your stature in the
                              community.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > I hope the answers are helpful.<br>
                              ><br>
                              > Owen<br>
                              ><br>
                              ><br>
                              >
                              _______________________________________________<br>
                              > RPD mailing list<br>
                              > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
                              > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
                              <br>
                              <br>
_______________________________________________<br>
                              RPD mailing list<br>
                              <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
                              <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
                            </blockquote>
                          </div>
                        </div>
                      </blockquote>
                    </div>
                    _______________________________________________<br>
                    RPD mailing list<br>
                    <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
                    <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
                  </blockquote>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            _______________________________________________<br>
            RPD mailing list<br>
            <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
            <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </div>

_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>