[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Update 23rd November 2015
badru.ntege at nftconsult.com
Tue Nov 24 12:08:09 UTC 2015
I think Andrew did make his point very clear and as shocking as it maybe to you I think we had a fact based discussion and to me ended mutually. Actually again to shock you I of all the dialogue I had on this list I think the one with Andrew was clear.
What I do not understand is contributions like yours which look for what was not in the email. I might not agree with Andrew most times but does not mean I cannot dialogue with him.
Unless he asked you to help on the mail (which I doubt) I do not understand why you then write on his behalf
Unfortunately its missguided souls like you that are part of our biggest problem. One could even go as far as calling the cancer.
On 11/23/15, 10:35 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 03:26 , Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote:
On 11/23/15, 2:11 PM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
Firstly, let me state my apologies for my silence of late, due to circumstances beyond my control I have been largely out of contact for the purposes of AfriNIC business for the better part of 2 months. It is important to note that the terms of reference require that the audit committee act unanimously, and this could not happen over this period, hence certain delays, which again, I apologise for.
Could we be lead to assume that you do not have enough time to serve Afrinic. We do totally understand that Afrinic is purely voluntary and if your primary assignments have become too demanding, mechanisms of relieving the workload do exist. I’m sure chair is fully aware of these so we do not have to elaborate.
It’s clear you can be led to assume whatever you wish and that you are clearly attempting to lead the community to assume facts not in evidence.
Even the most dedicated volunteers sometimes have things come up which temporarily pull them away from their volunteer duties. Andrew has expressed this in a manner that implies the distraction was temporary in nature and I see no reason to believe otherwise. I’m quite certain that if Andrew faced any sort of permanent inability to fulfill his obligations, he would act accordingly without requiring any form of encouragement from you.
Please rest assured that a lot of work has gone in since Tunis into ensuring that the information that is provided to the community is accurate and a fair representation. I would rather such information was provided slightly delayed than contained inaccuracies or disputed pointed, and as a result, the work has taken a significant amount of time, due to the care and thoroughness applied.
The above in a way is in contradiction to your pre-ceeding statement which referred to conflicting priorities.
No, it isn’t. Andrew stated that one of the contributing factors to the overall delay has been his inability to work on the matter.
This paragraph seems to me to state that there are other factors as well, including the need for extensive work presumably performed by other members of the committee. Further, Andrew stated that his inability to work on the matter only covers the last 2 months (September and October). Since the Tunis meeting was early in June, that leaves several other months during which even he could have been doing significant work on this.
You seem so determined to find fault with the current board and Andrew in particular that you have failed to apply even the most basic of logic and mathematics to your analysis of Andrew’s message.
Lastly, Badru, you make reference to 3 days instead of 14 days. I point out that the notice of the SGMM was published on the 20th of November 2014, for an SGMM that is scheduled for the 3rd of December. By my calculations, 3 days would mean that the SGMM is on the 23rd of November, so you seem to have misplaced 11 days. Hence, while you refer to a section in the bylaws that references ANNUAL general meetings, rather that SPECIAL general meetings, if you choose to conflate the two (and there is reason within the companies act why you should not do that), even under these circumstances the timelines have been met.
My reference to the 3 days was to the information provided by Chair in the earlier email. However once again this is subjective based on ones paradigm.
Then your reference is misplaced because as Andrew pointed out, you referenced a section of the bylaws that applies to the notice to be given of Annual General Member Meetings. If you have a correct reference in the bylaws that requires 14 days notice for the information from the chair in the earlier email, please provide a corrected reference point in the bylaws. Otherwise, please accept that you were mistaken and let’s all move on from this point.
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss