Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: IPv6 network measurement presenter (Hurricane Electric).
Source description Public policy participant
Owen Delong, (Hurricane Electric) stated that the RFC2050 is one of the IETF documents that delegates the number policies and processes to the to RIR system.
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-09-11
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
The participant consistently argues that staff must apply the written policy, that a compliant request should not be denied on suspicion alone, and that stronger, clearly written safeguards may be needed to prevent exploitation of African resources. Supporting the existing rule-bound process while advocating new limits through the policy process is a refinement of the policy framework rather than a reversal.
Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources
Assessment: Consistent · The participant consistently argues that staff must apply the written policy, that a compliant request should not be denied on suspicion alone, and that stronger, clearly written safeguards may be needed to prevent exploitation of African resources. Supporting the existing rule-bound process while advocating new limits through the policy process is a refinement of the policy framework rather than a reversal.
Conditions: Trust in a compliant request is conditioned on the absence of strong evidence of fraud. · The later call for limits concerns new or clearer policy language and does not claim that staff may ignore the policy then in force. · The messages do not establish whether any proposed amendment was adopted.
AfriNIC does not have the ability to make it up as they go along, nor do they have the authority to deny a request that conforms to policy any more than they have the authority to issue a request which does not comply with policy.
I agree that the allocation is suspicious, but if the postmasters say that the justification supplied meets policy, then I believe we must trust them absent any strong evidence of fraud.
While I agree with Andrew to a large extent that African companies must be allowed to use AfriNIC space to compete globally, I also believe that a lack of limitations on the exportation of address space by pseudo-African companies[1] and/or non-African companies[2] will lead to exploitation that does not particularly benefit Africa or Africans.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The participant objects to allowing subsequent requests because repeated requests could consume resources with little infrastructure or deployment. This is a clear concern about a particular mechanism, but the record contains no second statement on this proposal with which to assess continuity.
Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The participant objects to allowing subsequent requests because repeated requests could consume resources with little infrastructure or deployment. This is a clear concern about a particular mechanism, but the record contains no second statement on this proposal with which to assess continuity.
Conditions: The objection addresses the proposed subsequent-request mechanism; it does not establish the participant's full position on the anycast proposal or its final outcome.
The problem I have with Alan?s suggestion for allowing subsequent requests is that at least in the IPv4 case, this could easily be used to artificially consume massive amounts of resources with very little investment in infrastructure or deployment.
Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources · Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region
Assessment: Consistent · The concern that repeated requests could consume resources without adequate deployment is compatible with the broader argument that resource policy should prevent exploitation while preserving rule-bound decisions. These are different proposals, but the supplied statements point to the same stewardship principle rather than contradictory positions.
Conditions: The comparison is about resource stewardship and enforceability, not proof that the participant supported or opposed both proposals as a whole. · Different policy mechanisms must not be treated as the same proposal.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The participant proposes a technical alternative to the suggested route-community solution. One alternative proposal is not enough to determine a stable position over time or a contradiction with another view on IXP resource reservations.
Resource Reservations for Internet Exchange Points
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The participant proposes a technical alternative to the suggested route-community solution. One alternative proposal is not enough to determine a stable position over time or a contradiction with another view on IXP resource reservations.
Conditions: This is an engineering alternative, not evidence of adoption or implementation.
I disagree? I think that may be the easiest or most expedient solution, but almost certainly not the best.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The participant supports a careful review of a resource request and says that the request should probably not be approved based on the conduct described. This is one substantive assessment, not enough to establish a position over time or a change in it.
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The participant supports a careful review of a resource request and says that the request should probably not be approved based on the conduct described. This is one substantive assessment, not enough to establish a position over time or a change in it.
Conditions: The statement concerns one application and process response; it is not evidence of a general policy verdict.
I think passing your request to the board instead of merely having the CEO deny it outright is probably a kindness being done for you by AfriNIC which, IMHO, you are unlikely to deserve.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
The participant describes continued IPv4 dependence as harmful and as prolonging a declining protocol, while explicitly reaffirming support for the policy. The later statements clarify that the criticism is directed at delaying IPv6 deployment, not at withdrawing support for the policy; the supplied record therefore shows a consistent position.
Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC (Arnaud Amelina, Jean-Baptiste Millogo, Marcus Adomey)
Assessment: Consistent · The participant describes continued IPv4 dependence as harmful and as prolonging a declining protocol, while explicitly reaffirming support for the policy. The later statements clarify that the criticism is directed at delaying IPv6 deployment, not at withdrawing support for the policy; the supplied record therefore shows a consistent position.
Conditions: The statements do not by themselves establish the policy's adoption or implementation. · The conclusion is limited to the three supplied messages.
Which I have repeatedly referred to as IPv4 Life Support because that?s essentially what it is.
I have already expressed support for the policy.
I?ve already expressed support for this policy. I?ve already expressed support for keeping AfriNIC resources for Africa.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The participant rejects conserving the free IPv4 pool by withholding resources from people with justified need and favors distribution while resources remain, followed by policy-permitted transfers after exhaustion. This single 2016 statement does not establish a longer-term position on this policy or a change in it.
IPv4 Soft Landing – bis (Alain Aina)
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The participant rejects conserving the free IPv4 pool by withholding resources from people with justified need and favors distribution while resources remain, followed by policy-permitted transfers after exhaustion. This single 2016 statement does not establish a longer-term position on this policy or a change in it.
Conditions: The statement is a participant position on resource distribution, not an adoption outcome or a complete recovery of the referenced draft text.
If there is a justified need for the resources, then the RIR should distribute them accordingly.
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The participant accepts that an SLA may exist but argues that best-effort service is acceptable under current circumstances and opposes imposing a materially more expensive SLA without substantial community benefit. This single exchange cannot establish a longer-term consistency finding.
Service Level Agreement for the IANA Numbering Services
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The participant accepts that an SLA may exist but argues that best-effort service is acceptable under current circumstances and opposes imposing a materially more expensive SLA without substantial community benefit. This single exchange cannot establish a longer-term consistency finding.
Conditions: The position is conditional on current funding and the burden imposed on the RIR; no later statement is supplied.
I?m not saying that there shouldn?t be an SLA, but I think best-effort is a perfectly acceptable SLA for the current circumstance and funding.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
The author opposes the proposal as written in both messages and consistently proposes a multihoming-or-unique-routing-policy alternative.
Modification in the ASN eligibility criteria
Assessment: Consistent · The author opposes the proposal as written in both messages and consistently proposes a multihoming-or-unique-routing-policy alternative.
Conditions: The alternative preserves a demonstrable need requirement rather than granting an ASN without a real need.
All of those would be covered by the ?unique routing policy? language that I proposed. On the other hand, prop-114 as written in the APNIC region proposes ?I want an ASN?? ?OK, here you go.? I think that allowing anyone who wants one to get an ASN without any real need is not a good idea. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20150208/7e196d1f/attachment.html>
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources · Anycast resource assignments in the AFRINIC region
Assessment: Consistent · The concern that repeated requests could consume resources without adequate deployment is compatible with the broader argument that resource policy should prevent exploitation while preserving rule-bound decisions. These are different proposals, but the supplied statements point to the same stewardship principle rather than contradictory positions.
Conditions: The comparison is about resource stewardship and enforceability, not proof that the participant supported or opposed both proposals as a whole. · Different policy mechanisms must not be treated as the same proposal.
The hostmasters must be able to act in good faith in making such determinations to the best of their ability and we as a community must accept their judgment.
The problem I have with Alan?s suggestion for allowing subsequent requests is that at least in the IPv4 case, this could easily be used to artificially consume massive amounts of resources with very little investment in infrastructure or deployment.
The hostmasters must be able to act in good faith in making such determinations to the best of their ability and we as a community must accept their judgment.
The problem I have with Alan?s suggestion for allowing subsequent requests is that at least in the IPv4 case, this could easily be used to artificially consume massive amounts of resources with very little investment in infrastructure or deployment.
