<div dir="ltr">+1 Owen.<br><div><br></div><div>Every AFRINIC member automatically complies with the provisions of the CPM, RSA and Bylaws. In fact, that is the prominent rule to acquire membership and receive number allocations. In my opinion, if an organization is in line with AFRINIC's reglementations, is an active member providing internet connectivity thus contributing to the region's development, I do not see a valid reason why that particular entity should not perform brokerage activities or run a legitimate business in its respective operation region or outside. </div><div><br></div><div>The fact that a company should be penalized based on such grounds is unjust and represents a huge loss for AFRICA.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><div>Regards,</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le dim. 4 juil. 2021 à 04:59, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jul 2, 2021, at 8:50 AM, Sylvain Baya <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" target="_blank">abscoco@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="auto"><div>Dear AfriNIC's Community, </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hope this email finds you in good health!<br><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 2 juil. 2021 12:43 PM, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>> a écrit :</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Hi Owen, </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks for your email, brother!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
> [...]<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...interesting!</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
An organization which happens to have a wholly owned subsidiary that is a broker<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Questions: </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">~°~</div><div dir="auto">•1] Would that org be bound to the RSA?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Unlikely.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">•2] Would it be compliant to the CPM?</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Unlikely.</div><div><br></div><div>The subsidiary organization would not have a contractual relationship with AFRINIC.</div><div><br></div><div>OTOH, in the simpler case above (single organization that is both an LRI in Africa and a</div><div>broker in (e.g. EU), the single organization would be a signatory and would therefore likely</div><div>be bound.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">~°~</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
An organization which isn’t a broker, but happens to be the wholly owned subsidiary of a broker<br>
</blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...same questions, here, as above :-/</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>The broker likely would not be, but the subsidiary organization would likely be bound until such</div><div>time as their membership was terminated/rejected.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Given that it's about registration of service, </div><div dir="auto">remember RSA section 4. Conditions of </div><div dir="auto">service...</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...particularly:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">b) Cooperation:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">c) Applicant's use of the service</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, but those only apply to registrant’s activities with regard to resources registered to them</div><div>by AFRINIC. The brokerage operation even within the same company would be independent.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> An organization which is owned by an entity which also owns such a broker<br>
etc.<br>
<br> <br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Remember: AfriNIC has the right to </div><div dir="auto">review the use of the service offered to </div><div dir="auto">the resource members.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Yes, but the SERVICE in this case is the address registration of resources by AFRINIC to the member.</div><div>The brokerage activity in address resources from other RIRs are not subject to AFRINIC policies and</div><div>not covered by the RSA.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
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”.<br> <br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">...imho, it just adds more work to AfriNIC's </div><div dir="auto">Staff, to protect the regional pools of </div><div dir="auto">INRs against "non-acceptable" uses...</div><div dir="auto">being it out-of-region or not.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Why is AFRINIC at all responsible for regional pools outside of the ones under AFRINIC management?</div><div><br></div><div>The point here is that it is an absurd concept to prohibit companies that are both LIRs in AFRICA</div><div>and brokers from being members. It’s arbitrary, capricious, and illogical.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Also there is a way to report on non-</div><div dir="auto">compliant behaviours...so AfriNIC's Staff </div><div dir="auto">could benefit of a community collaboration.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Who said anything about non-compliant behaviors? I was commenting about the absurdity of someone’s</div><div>suggestion earlier that AFRINIC should terminate memberships of organizations that are address</div><div>brokers.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div>