Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>]

----- On Aug 31, 2021, at 1:37 PM, Rubens Kuhl rubensk () gmail com wrote:

Hi Rubens,

> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:28 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net> wrote:
> > In all fairness, that is as ambiguous as it can be. What constitutes "support
> > of connectivity back to the AfriNIC region"?
>
> I can try helping with that: in underserved regions it's not unusual
> for network services for that population to be physically hosted out
> of the region. For instance, if you have a hosting service that only
> accepts South African rands and your language options are Afrikaans
> and Zulu, you can credibly argue to AfriNIC that you are targeting its
> service region and are eligible for AfriNIC number resources.

That is one (fair) interpretation. Also one that I didn't think of. 
 
> But you would need to be upfront with that, including mentioning that
> your upstreams are not from Africa and your installations won't be in
> Africa.
> Otherwise you applied for number resources under false pretenses, and
> will bear the risk of such.

Again, fair enough. And what happens if the same hosting company is
struggling and now decides to offer its services to other regions
as well? Are they now out of compliance and at risk to have their
precious number resources revoked?

My point is not that you are wrong (your interpretation of the clause
is very reasonable). My point is that different people have a different
understanding of the plain language of that clause. And that is assuming
that it applies, as I believe that CI is arguing that it does not.

When I did my MBA program, I had to take accounting classes. One of the
key takeaways for me was the explanation for the need of accounting rules.

Imagine two accountants discussing the value of the Golden Gate Bridge.
The first accountant will estimate it at $120 million, while the second
accountant will say $121 million. Both are fairly reasonable, and very
close to each other. However, for accounting purposes, only one value
can be used. Which one should be used?

A similar issue is, from what I can see, going on here. How does one
interpret the AfriNIC region clause? You come across as a very reasonable
person, and I like to think that I am, too. Yet we have a different
initial interpretation of the rules.

I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
work cut out for them.

Thanks,

Sabri