[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Update 23rd November 2015

Tue Nov 24 21:17:25 UTC 2015

Hello Noah,

I don't think a public response like this to a community member is
appropriate. We all have our differences and we should recognise that by
accommodating one another.

I have participated within other RIR communities and I don't experience
such a response, the worse I get is "no response" to my comments (which by
the way can be annoying), but it doesn't mean I am not permitted to share
my view.

I encourage us all to remain focused on the substance in the interest of
the organisation. Like Prof Nii rightly alluded to; the world is watching.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Nov 2015 20:50, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:

> Some of you ought to remain either silent or as observers......
>
> some of your comments clearly ever add value....
>
> We are sick and tired....
>
> Noah
> On 24 Nov 2015 22:37, "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Nov 24, 2015, at 04:08 , Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> You are the one incorporating things not in the email. I never said you
>> could not dialogue with Andrew and I would never presume to speak for him.
>>
>> I spoke only to what I saw as the facts of the matter and of my opinion
>> as a concerned member of the community.
>>
>>
>> Unless he asked you to help on the mail (which I doubt)  I do not
>> understand why you then write on his behalf
>>
>>
>> Again, I do not believe I did so. I wrote on my behalf as a concerned
>> member of the community who is tired of your repetitive attempts to rewrite
>> history to your own liking.
>>
>> Unfortunately its missguided souls like you that are part of our biggest
>> problem.  One could even go as far as calling  the cancer.
>>
>>
>> An interesting and telling comment.
>>
>> I wonder, could you attack my statements on their merit rather than
>> resorting to ad hominem?
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> Baffled ????????
>>
>>
>> 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:
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> Comments inline
>>
>> On 11/23/15, 2:11 PM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Badru,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Owen
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing
>> list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20151124/f068da0c/attachment.html>