From sfolayan at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 10:14:38 2016 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:14:38 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC Message-ID: ** *Dear Community,* * There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st January 2017. You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO NC/ASO AC. Sincerely, Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board* -- -------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan Managing Director General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com --------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mathew.Chigwende at liquidtelecom.com Tue Nov 1 10:20:49 2016 From: Mathew.Chigwende at liquidtelecom.com (Mathew Chigwende) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:20:49 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Fiona and good luck. Regards, Mathew Chigwende From: Sunday Folayan [mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com] Sent: 01 November 2016 10:15 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC Dear Community, There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st January 2017. You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO NC/ASO AC. Sincerely, Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board -- -------------------------------------------------- Sunday Adekunle Folayan Managing Director General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com --------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bukkiepharworley at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 10:24:42 2016 From: bukkiepharworley at gmail.com (Bukola Fawole) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:24:42 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Fiona, wish you good success. On 1 Nov 2016 11:15, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: > > > > > > * Dear Community, There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC > from the AFRINIC Service region. Two are elected by the community with > staggered three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC > Board. I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. > Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year > term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. Mark > Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and continues to > serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected by the > community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will change from a > community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st January 2017. You > will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS summit in > Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 to 31 > December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative elected by > the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. > Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins > for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO NC/ASO > AC. Sincerely, Sunday Folayan Chair, AFRINIC Board* > > -- > -------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > Managing Director > General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) > 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria > Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 > Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > --------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mje at posix.co.za Tue Nov 1 10:29:13 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:29:13 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the ASO AC. On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: > ** > > *Dear Community,* > > * > > There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC > Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered > three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. > > > I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. > Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year > term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. > Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and > continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected > by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will > change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st > January 2017. > > > You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS > summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 > to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative > elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. > > Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins > for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO > NC/ASO AC. > > > Sincerely, > > > Sunday Folayan > > Chair, AFRINIC Board* > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > Managing Director > General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) > 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria > Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 > Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > --------------------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > Members-Discuss mailing list > Members-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jnoulaye at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 11:13:03 2016 From: jnoulaye at gmail.com (Janvier NGNOULAYE) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:13:03 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: <9f7ee5a5-6900-4b12-a7d7-cb62cdf65d86@email.android.com> References: <9f7ee5a5-6900-4b12-a7d7-cb62cdf65d86@email.android.com> Message-ID: Congrats to Fiona. Thanks to Mark for the work during his term. Regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye 2016-11-01 11:47 GMT+01:00 : > Great news > Congratulations Fiona Keep up the great work. > > _______________________________________________ > Members-Discuss mailing list > Members-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 12:09:05 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:09:05 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why does the board appoint someone that community rejected in a public vote? Did board consider reasons behind community rejection of Fiona? Has board decided to neglect the opinion of the community therefore? Is Fiona the only one in the whole continent that board could appoint to the position after she lost community trust in the same position? Doesnt the board owe community an explanation for this action? On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. > Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the > ASO AC. > > On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: >> ** >> >> *Dear Community,* >> >> * >> >> There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC >> Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered >> three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. >> >> >> I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. >> Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year >> term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. >> Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and >> continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected >> by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will >> change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st >> January 2017. >> >> >> You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS >> summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 >> to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative >> elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. >> >> Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins >> for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO >> NC/ASO AC. >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> Sunday Folayan >> >> Chair, AFRINIC Board* >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Sunday Adekunle Folayan >> Managing Director >> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) >> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria >> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 >> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Members-Discuss mailing list >> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 12:10:53 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:10:53 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Why does the board appoint someone that community rejected in a public vote? Did board consider reasons behind community rejection of Fiona? Has board decided to neglect the opinion of the community therefore? Is Fiona the only one in the whole continent that board could appoint to the position after she lost community trust in the same position? Doesnt the board owe community an explanation for this action? On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. > Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the > ASO AC. > > On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: >> ** >> >> *Dear Community,* >> >> * >> >> There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC >> Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered >> three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. >> >> >> I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. >> Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year >> term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. >> Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and >> continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected >> by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will >> change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st >> January 2017. >> >> >> You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS >> summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 >> to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative >> elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. >> >> Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins >> for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO >> NC/ASO AC. >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> Sunday Folayan >> >> Chair, AFRINIC Board* >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Sunday Adekunle Folayan >> Managing Director >> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) >> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria >> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 >> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Members-Discuss mailing list >> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From mje at posix.co.za Tue Nov 1 12:33:34 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:33:34 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm sure the Board brought various aspects to their decision including female representation. Not winning at an election should not imply a loss of trust, only that one did not get more votes than another. I believe one should contribute to the organisation before being rewarded by an office. I certainly believe that Fiona has done this. This would also back up my statement in RPD that to be elected as a Co-Chair, one should have contributed in some way to Policy. On 01/11/2016 14:09, Jackson Muthili wrote: > Why does the board appoint someone that community rejected in a public > vote? Did board consider reasons behind community rejection of Fiona? > Has board decided to neglect the opinion of the community therefore? > Is Fiona the only one in the whole continent that board could appoint > to the position after she lost community trust in the same position? > > Doesnt the board owe community an explanation for this action? > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: >> Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. >> Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the >> ASO AC. >> >> On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: >>> ** >>> >>> *Dear Community,* >>> >>> * >>> >>> There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC >>> Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered >>> three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. >>> >>> >>> I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. >>> Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year >>> term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. >>> Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and >>> continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected >>> by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will >>> change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st >>> January 2017. >>> >>> >>> You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS >>> summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 >>> to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative >>> elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. >>> >>> Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins >>> for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO >>> NC/ASO AC. >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> >>> Sunday Folayan >>> >>> Chair, AFRINIC Board* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> Sunday Adekunle Folayan >>> Managing Director >>> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) >>> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria >>> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 >>> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com >>> --------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Members-Discuss mailing list >>> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> >> >> -- >> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From jwalu at yahoo.com Tue Nov 1 13:54:23 2016 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:54:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> @Muthili, ..rejection? I do not remember AfriNIC elections being held ?to reject anyone. The vote is always held to elect not reject candidates who have shown the willingness to serve on volunteer basis. ? Not winning is not the same as being rejected. ?Last time I checked very useful members of community were not elected in the recent past but continue to engage positively.? Alain A, Badru, Paulos ?never made it back to the Board. ?I did not know that, that meant community had rejected them. Maybe ?we change our bylaws to reflect this new reasoning? walu. From: Jackson Muthili To: Mark Elkins Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; "members-discuss at afrinic.net" Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2016 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC Why does the board appoint someone that community rejected in a public vote? Did board consider reasons behind community rejection of Fiona? Has board decided to neglect the opinion of the community therefore? Is Fiona the only one in the whole continent that board could appoint to the position after she lost community trust in the same position? Doesnt the board owe community an explanation for this action? On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. > Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the > ASO AC. > > On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: >> ** >> >> *Dear Community,* >> >> * >> >> There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC >> Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered >> three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. >> >> >> I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. >> Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year >> term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. >> Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and >> continues to serve until 31 December 2016.? Fiona was previously elected >> by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will >> change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st >> January 2017. >> >> >> You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS >> summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 >> to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative >> elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. >> >> Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins >> for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO >> NC/ASO AC. >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> Sunday Folayan >> >> Chair, AFRINIC Board* >> >> >> -- >> -------------------------------------------------- >> Sunday Adekunle Folayan >> Managing Director >> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) >> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria >> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 >> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Members-Discuss mailing list >> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> > > -- > Mark James ELKINS? -? Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za? ? ? Tel: +27.128070590? Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Nov 1 14:49:27 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:49:27 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <753FE9AB-549A-4611-BB0C-E8B967DE93DE@liquidtelecom.com> Using this thought process hypothetically, and speaking strictly as an individual If this is the mindset that we wish to adopt, and I am certainly not saying it is, would it not be a good idea to write into the bylaws that if someone runs for election and loses, they should not be eligible to run again for a defined period (2 years or whatever), since based on this logic, they have been rejected? As I said, I?m not taking a position at all on if this is the stance we should take ? I have my views on that but will keep them to myself ? but *IF* it is the stance ? then let us take it all the way and consider all the implications of it. Andrew From: Walubengo J Reply-To: Walubengo J Date: Tuesday, 1 November 2016 at 16:54 To: Jackson Muthili , Mark Elkins Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , "members-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC Alain A, Badru, Paulos never made it back to the Board. I did not know that, that meant community had rejected them. Maybe we change our bylaws to reflect this new reasoning? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Tue Nov 1 15:31:41 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:31:41 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hello, > On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > > ? Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or naive.. > > Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide realistic ways of doing this that contain *detailed* proposals of how this would be accomplished and what the end results are. There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non productive discussions. The policy proposal was introduced on the 18 May 2016, and we have had these discussions. RPD and the AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available. Now that you have asked again, see below... > > See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. > > a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables Policy proposals do not dictate implementation, but describe principles to action. The policy proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very clear on parties responsibilities. http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa The policy proposal says : === 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in accordance with the non-exhaustive list below: Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing table. Breach of AFRINIC policies. Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and AFRINIC. Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks have not been transferred. Unauthorized transfers of resources. === Looking at the global Internet routing table at a given time is an option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table without being used. Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here. What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified needs and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are bound to collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below. === (b) Cooperation: (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service. (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering resources already assigned to it. (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may: entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC; be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and future assignment or allocation of numbering resources; lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by AFRINIC. === Investigated members to provide information and data to convince AFRINIC which may not need to do much. ?Say what you do, do what you say and prove it." > b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are meant to come from > AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the RSA. This proposal is just guidelines on how to implement it. But if there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to AFRINIC staff to say so. The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall co-chairs request one ? > c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy > I remembered the discussions on possible abuse on the ?reported? class of the policy proposal. === 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: They have requested the review themselves or there has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. === This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of known abuses. People have been complaining about flaws in current policies, practices which have been abused by some members. > d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. > The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis to all reviews. Questioning applications approved by Hostmasters is a different matter. > > I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, Ah bon ? I have not heard that. But in case this exist, I would expect this policy proposal to help clear the point. > vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference. There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further analysis and readings of the data. ?Alain > > Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this discussion. > > Andrew > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnoulaye at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 15:39:24 2016 From: jnoulaye at gmail.com (Janvier NGNOULAYE) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:39:24 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jackson, I'll just take a simple example among a thousand: In 2008 in US, Hillary Clinton lost the primary election against Obama, but once Obama elected, he has taken her as the Minister of Foreign Relations. At that time he thought that she was the best to handle many internal and external situations. In the other hand, for this matter, we have here a technical position, the community election has more a political perspective which is also good, while the Board appointment considers a tech skill and a long experience on the topics for instance on (Post)IANA transition, inter-RIR operations, etc. And the end we have a team with a complete skill for the job. So just keep trusting the Board and let's move forward. Warm regards, Janvier Ngnoulaye Afrinic Member 2016-11-01 13:09 GMT+01:00 Jackson Muthili : > Why does the board appoint someone that community rejected in a public > vote? Did board consider reasons behind community rejection of Fiona? > Has board decided to neglect the opinion of the community therefore? > Is Fiona the only one in the whole continent that board could appoint > to the position after she lost community trust in the same position? > > Doesnt the board owe community an explanation for this action? > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. > > Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the > > ASO AC. > > > > On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> ** > >> > >> *Dear Community,* > >> > >> * > >> > >> There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC > >> Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered > >> three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. > >> > >> > >> I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. > >> Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year > >> term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. > >> Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and > >> continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected > >> by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will > >> change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st > >> January 2017. > >> > >> > >> You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS > >> summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 > >> to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative > >> elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. > >> > >> Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins > >> for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO > >> NC/ASO AC. > >> > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> > >> Sunday Folayan > >> > >> Chair, AFRINIC Board* > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> Sunday Adekunle Folayan > >> Managing Director > >> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) > >> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria > >> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 > >> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > >> --------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Members-Discuss mailing list > >> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > >> > > > > -- > > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From amelnaud at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 16:09:33 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:09:33 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: My Contribution through the lines of this message 2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA : > Hello, > > On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston com> wrote: > > > > ? Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or > naive.. > > Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than > me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide > realistic ways of doing this that contain **detailed** proposals of how > this would be accomplished and what the end results are. > > > There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but > resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non > productive discussions. > > The policy proposal was introduced on the 18 May 2016, and we have had > these discussions. RPD and the AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available. > +1 @Alain Yes Andrew, we had good discussions and a new version of the proposal which incorporated the changes was posted Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the link below : http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal. ==== "Just a question about the audit policy?. Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules? Thanks" === regards > > Now that you have asked again, see below... > > > See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when > I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and > unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. > > > a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be > realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables > > > Policy proposals do not dictate implementation, but describe principles > to action. > > The policy proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign > before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very > clear on parties responsibilities. http://www. > afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa > > The policy proposal says : > > === > > 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in > accordance with the non-exhaustive list below: > > - Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing > table. > - Breach of AFRINIC policies. > - Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or > other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and > AFRINIC. > - Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks > have not been transferred. > - Unauthorized transfers of resources. > > === > > Looking at the global Internet routing table at a given time is an > option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an > indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about > utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table > without being used. > Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here. > What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified > needs and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are bound to > collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below. > > === > > (b) Cooperation: > > (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times > bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as > may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service. > > (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is > investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering > resources already assigned to it. > > (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may: > > 1. entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC; > 2. be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and > future assignment or allocation of numbering resources; > 3. lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by > AFRINIC. > > > === > > Investigated members to provide information and data to convince AFRINIC > which may not need to do much. > > ?Say what you do, do what you say and prove it." > > > b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are > meant to come from > > > AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the > RSA. This proposal is just guidelines on how to implement it. But if > there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to AFRINIC staff to say so. > The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall > co-chairs request one ? > > > c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy > > > I remembered the discussions on possible abuse on the ?reported? class > of the policy proposal. > > === > 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > 1. They have requested the review themselves or > 2. there has been a community complaint made against them that > warrants investigation. > > === > > This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as > a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of > known abuses. > > People have been complaining about flaws in current policies, practices > which have been abused by some members. > > d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then > the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by > the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do > their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you > want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. > > > The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis > to all reviews. Questioning applications approved by Hostmasters is a > different matter. > > > I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims > that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, > > > Ah bon ? I have not heard that. But in case this exist, I would expect > this policy proposal to help clear the point. > > vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are > actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference. > > > There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further > analysis and readings of the data. > > ?Alain > > > Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this > discussion. > > Andrew > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Nov 1 16:39:43 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 16:39:43 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Arnaud, Let me be very clear ? I never expressed support for this policy ? I asked a question. I am COMPLETELY opposed to this policy, and will be until such time as the policy explicitly states that in the event of a complaint against a member, the member is informed when he is audited who complained and the grounds stated for the complaint. That is in line with internationally accepted practice that the accused may have the right to confront his accuser, and protects against malicious accusations for the sake of causing on going work for an organisation. It opens the door for legal action against an accuser by the accused, if the accused feels the accuser is lodging complaints that are malicious and unsubstantiated in nature, and it means that those who are complaining and demanding audits are doing so *backed by evidence* rather than because they feel they can. I also argue that any person who issues a complaint should be willing to subject themselves to automatic audit, which again, will cut down on unfounded complaints that are not backed by evidence. In addition to this, complaints should be submitted by *members* alone, they are the true stake holders, and I will oppose any policy that allows a random member of the community to submit arbitrary complaints without proof, evidence or proper substantiation. Further to this, 3.4 makes reference to unauthorised transfers. I can issue with auditing against something that is unauthorised when there is no process to authorise it. That needs re-wording until such time as there is a transfer policy. I also take issue with 3.4 that it is declared as a non-exhaustive list. That is an open door for abuse, define the reasons for audit and stick to them. I also take *HUGE* issue with 3.6 ? if you want 3.6 and you want to publish the names of companies that have been audited, firstly, you have to publish the names as well of the requesting party, and secondly, that would be a direct violation of the confidentiality agreements agreed to in the RSA which you yourself refer to in the policy. Those are my thoughts ? but until those issues are rectified ? I do not support this policy, nor do any of the 15 organisations which I represent directly support this policy. Once those issues are rectified, I will *consider* support for the policy, but the above points are deal breakers for me ? after that, consideration can be given. Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com] Sent: 01 November 2016 19:10 To: ALAIN AINA Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? My Contribution through the lines of this message 2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA >: Hello, On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or naive.. Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide realistic ways of doing this that contain *detailed* proposals of how this would be accomplished and what the end results are. There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non productive discussions. The policy proposal was introduced on the 18 May 2016, and we have had these discussions. RPD and the AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available. +1 @Alain Yes Andrew, we had good discussions and a new version of the proposal which incorporated the changes was posted Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the link below : http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal. ==== "Just a question about the audit policy?. Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules? Thanks" === regards Now that you have asked again, see below... See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables Policy proposals do not dictate implementation, but describe principles to action. The policy proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very clear on parties responsibilities. http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa The policy proposal says : === 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in accordance with the non-exhaustive list below: * Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing table. * Breach of AFRINIC policies. * Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and AFRINIC. * Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks have not been transferred. * Unauthorized transfers of resources. === Looking at the global Internet routing table at a given time is an option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table without being used. Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here. What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified needs and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are bound to collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below. === (b) Cooperation: (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service. (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering resources already assigned to it. (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may: 1. entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC; 2. be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and future assignment or allocation of numbering resources; 3. lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by AFRINIC. === Investigated members to provide information and data to convince AFRINIC which may not need to do much. ?Say what you do, do what you say and prove it." b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are meant to come from AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the RSA. This proposal is just guidelines on how to implement it. But if there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to AFRINIC staff to say so. The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall co-chairs request one ? c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy I remembered the discussions on possible abuse on the ?reported? class of the policy proposal. === 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: 1. They have requested the review themselves or 2. there has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. === This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of known abuses. People have been complaining about flaws in current policies, practices which have been abused by some members. d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis to all reviews. Questioning applications approved by Hostmasters is a different matter. I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, Ah bon ? I have not heard that. But in case this exist, I would expect this policy proposal to help clear the point. vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference. There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further analysis and readings of the data. ?Alain Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this discussion. Andrew _______________________________________________ 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: From amelnaud at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 17:28:34 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:28:34 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: 2016-11-01 16:39 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston : > Arnaud, > > > > Let me be very clear ? > > > > I never expressed support for this policy ? I asked a question. > > > > I am COMPLETELY opposed to this policy, and will be until such time as the > policy explicitly states that in the event of a complaint against a member, > the member is informed when he is audited who complained and the grounds > stated for the complaint. That is in line with internationally accepted > practice that the accused may have the right to confront his accuser, and > protects against malicious accusations for the sake of causing on going > work for an organisation. > > > > It opens the door for legal action against an accuser by the accused, if > the accused feels the accuser is lodging complaints that are malicious and > unsubstantiated in nature, and it means that those who are complaining and > demanding audits are doing so **backed by evidence** rather than because > they feel they can. > > > > I also argue that any person who issues a complaint should be willing to > subject themselves to automatic audit, which again, will cut down on > unfounded complaints that are not backed by evidence. > > > > In addition to this, complaints should be submitted by **members** alone, > they are the true stake holders, and I will oppose any policy that allows a > random member of the community to submit arbitrary complaints without > proof, evidence or proper substantiation. > > > Andrew, The relationship between the RIR and its members is based on trust. I feel you miss the intent of this proposal and imagine too many negative things. A network truly using resources should not care. I also feel you confuse role of policy and Afrinic staff who have responsibility to propose a process in accordance with the RSA. > Further to this, 3.4 makes reference to unauthorised transfers. I can > issue with auditing against something that is unauthorised when there is no > process to authorise it. That needs re-wording until such time as there is > a transfer policy. I also take issue with 3.4 that it is declared as a > non-exhaustive list. That is an open door for abuse, define the reasons > for audit and stick to them. > > > > I also take **HUGE** issue with 3.6 ? if you want 3.6 and you want to > publish the names of companies that have been audited, firstly, you have to > publish the names as well of the requesting party, and secondly, that would > be a direct violation of the confidentiality agreements agreed to in the > RSA which you yourself refer to in the policy. > > > > Those are my thoughts ? but until those issues are rectified ? I do not > support this policy, nor do any of the 15 organisations which I represent > directly support this policy. > Oooh! I am not aware that we can have proxy for PDP discussions too. > Once those issues are rectified, I will **consider** support for the > policy, but the above points are deal breakers for me ? after that, > consideration can be given. > --Arnaud > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > *From:* Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com] > *Sent:* 01 November 2016 19:10 > *To:* ALAIN AINA > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed > up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? > > > > My Contribution through the lines of this message > > > > 2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA : > > Hello, > > > > On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston com> wrote: > > > > > > ? Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or > naive.. > > > > Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than > me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide > realistic ways of doing this that contain **detailed** proposals of how > this would be accomplished and what the end results are. > > > > There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but > resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non > productive discussions. > > > > The policy proposal was introduced on the 18 May 2016, and we have had > these discussions. RPD and the AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available. > > > +1 @Alain > > Yes Andrew, we had good discussions and a new version of the proposal > which incorporated the changes was posted Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the > link below : > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/ > policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic > > And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is > cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal. > > ==== > > "Just a question about the audit policy?. > > Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 > assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs > based policy rules? > > Thanks" > > === > > regards > > > > > Now that you have asked again, see below... > > > > > > See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when > I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and > unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. > > > > a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be > realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables > > > > Policy proposals do not dictate implementation, but describe principles > to action. > > > > The policy proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign > before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very > clear on parties responsibilities. http://www. > afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa > > > > The policy proposal says : > > === > > 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in > accordance with the non-exhaustive list below: > > - Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing > table. > - Breach of AFRINIC policies. > - Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or > other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and > AFRINIC. > - Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks > have not been transferred. > - Unauthorized transfers of resources. > > === > > > > Looking at the global Internet routing table at a given time is an > option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an > indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about > utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table > without being used. > > Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here. > What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified > needs and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are bound to > collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below. > > > > === > > (b) Cooperation: > > (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times > bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as > may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service. > > (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is > investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering > resources already assigned to it. > > (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may: > > 1. entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC; > 2. be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and > future assignment or allocation of numbering resources; > 3. lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by > AFRINIC. > > > > === > > > > Investigated members to provide information and data to convince AFRINIC > which may not need to do much. > > > > ?Say what you do, do what you say and prove it." > > > > > > b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are > meant to come from > > > > > > AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the > RSA. This proposal is just guidelines on how to implement it. But if > there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to AFRINIC staff to say so. > The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall > co-chairs request one ? > > > > > c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy > > > > > > I remembered the discussions on possible abuse on the ?reported? class > of the policy proposal. > > > > === > > 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > 1. They have requested the review themselves or > 2. there has been a community complaint made against them that > warrants investigation. > > === > > > > This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as > a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of > known abuses. > > > > People have been complaining about flaws in current policies, practices > which have been abused by some members. > > > d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then > the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by > the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do > their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you > want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. > > > > > > The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis > to all reviews. Questioning applications approved by Hostmasters is a > different matter. > > > > > > I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims > that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, > > > > Ah bon ? I have not heard that. But in case this exist, I would expect > this policy proposal to help clear the point. > > > > vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are > actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference. > > > > There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further > analysis and readings of the data. > > > > ?Alain > > > > > > Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this > discussion. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mctimconsulting at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 18:14:10 2016 From: mctimconsulting at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:14:10 -0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Janvier! rgds, McTim On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Janvier NGNOULAYE wrote: > Hi Jackson, > I'll just take a simple example among a thousand: In 2008 in US, Hillary > Clinton lost the primary election against Obama, but once Obama elected, > he has taken her as the Minister of Foreign Relations. At that time he > thought that she was the best to handle many internal and external > situations. > In the other hand, for this matter, we have here a technical position, the > community election has more a political perspective which is also good, > while the Board appointment considers a tech skill and a long experience > on the topics for instance on (Post)IANA transition, inter-RIR operations, > etc. > And the end we have a team with a complete skill for the job. > So just keep trusting the Board and let's move forward. > > Warm regards, > Janvier Ngnoulaye > Afrinic Member > > 2016-11-01 13:09 GMT+01:00 Jackson Muthili : > >> Why does the board appoint someone that community rejected in a public >> vote? Did board consider reasons behind community rejection of Fiona? >> Has board decided to neglect the opinion of the community therefore? >> Is Fiona the only one in the whole continent that board could appoint >> to the position after she lost community trust in the same position? >> >> Doesnt the board owe community an explanation for this action? >> >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: >> > Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. >> > Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the >> > ASO AC. >> > >> > On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: >> >> ** >> >> >> >> *Dear Community,* >> >> >> >> * >> >> >> >> There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC >> >> Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered >> >> three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. >> >> >> >> >> >> I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. >> >> Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year >> >> term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. >> >> Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and >> >> continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously >> elected >> >> by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will >> >> change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st >> >> January 2017. >> >> >> >> >> >> You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS >> >> summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January >> 2017 >> >> to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative >> >> elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December >> 2017. >> >> >> >> Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark >> Elkins >> >> for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO >> >> NC/ASO AC. >> >> >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> >> >> >> >> Sunday Folayan >> >> >> >> Chair, AFRINIC Board* >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -------------------------------------------------- >> >> Sunday Adekunle Folayan >> >> Managing Director >> >> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) >> >> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria >> >> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 >> >> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Members-Discuss mailing list >> >> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net >> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> >> >> > >> > -- >> > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa >> > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 >> > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 19:16:12 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:16:12 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Walubengo J wrote: > @Muthili, > > ..rejection? > > I do not remember AfriNIC elections being held to reject anyone. The vote > is always held to elect not reject candidates who have shown the willingness > to serve on volunteer basis. A vote is held to elect. You may sugarcoat anyway you want but the one not elected got rejected. Or refused or ignored whatever word you please. And there usually are reasons why someone gets voted in, and why someone else doesn't. That is why there was a vote. > Not winning is not the same as being rejected. Of course it is the same if there was a vote. > Last time I checked very > useful members of community were not elected in the recent past but continue > to engage positively. Without a doubt. > Alain A, Badru, Paulos never made it back to the Board. I did not know > that, that meant community had rejected them. Of course it means members rejected them. > Maybe we change our bylaws to > reflect this new reasoning? If the community voted Fiona out of a role, this was obvious they did not want her in. If board on the other hand have reinstated her to the same role that the community did not want her in, interpret it the way you wish but this is a sign of something not right on the board part. In the 50 something countries on our continent, nobody else, other than a person voted out, could come in to serve the same role? From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Nov 1 19:33:57 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:33:57 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Arnaud, This has NOTHING to do with if we trust AfriNIC or not, it comes down to if commercial companies trust each other. NOTHING in your proposal stops organisation X who does not like organisation Y, going to AfriNIC and under the policy demanding that AfriNIC audit organisation Y. That drains AfriNIC resources and puts IMMENSE pressure on organisation Y because audits take time, effort and resources, all of which cost both AfriNIC and organisation Y in time, which equates to money. Has *ANYONE* proposing this policy actually been involved in a detailed audit of IP resources across a large organisation and understands what it entails? *Laugh* I have ? and if you do it properly, you?re looking at tying up resources in organisation Y potentially for *weeks* if they want to verify every IP address and its usage. Why are the proposers not willing to make the policy safer and give everyone in this community the assurances that they have recourse should the policy be used maliciously by forcing disclosure of who requested the audit? Or are there other motives at play here which aren?t being stated? You are right ? proxies aren?t allowed at PDP ? except in this case, they are not proxies. I am the direct administrative contact for those organisations and hence I speak for each of them, one organisation at a time. Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com] Sent: 01 November 2016 20:29 To: Andrew Alston Cc: ALAIN AINA ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? 2016-11-01 16:39 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston >: Arnaud, Let me be very clear ? I never expressed support for this policy ? I asked a question. I am COMPLETELY opposed to this policy, and will be until such time as the policy explicitly states that in the event of a complaint against a member, the member is informed when he is audited who complained and the grounds stated for the complaint. That is in line with internationally accepted practice that the accused may have the right to confront his accuser, and protects against malicious accusations for the sake of causing on going work for an organisation. It opens the door for legal action against an accuser by the accused, if the accused feels the accuser is lodging complaints that are malicious and unsubstantiated in nature, and it means that those who are complaining and demanding audits are doing so *backed by evidence* rather than because they feel they can. I also argue that any person who issues a complaint should be willing to subject themselves to automatic audit, which again, will cut down on unfounded complaints that are not backed by evidence. In addition to this, complaints should be submitted by *members* alone, they are the true stake holders, and I will oppose any policy that allows a random member of the community to submit arbitrary complaints without proof, evidence or proper substantiation. Andrew, The relationship between the RIR and its members is based on trust. I feel you miss the intent of this proposal and imagine too many negative things. A network truly using resources should not care. I also feel you confuse role of policy and Afrinic staff who have responsibility to propose a process in accordance with the RSA. Further to this, 3.4 makes reference to unauthorised transfers. I can issue with auditing against something that is unauthorised when there is no process to authorise it. That needs re-wording until such time as there is a transfer policy. I also take issue with 3.4 that it is declared as a non-exhaustive list. That is an open door for abuse, define the reasons for audit and stick to them. I also take *HUGE* issue with 3.6 ? if you want 3.6 and you want to publish the names of companies that have been audited, firstly, you have to publish the names as well of the requesting party, and secondly, that would be a direct violation of the confidentiality agreements agreed to in the RSA which you yourself refer to in the policy. Those are my thoughts ? but until those issues are rectified ? I do not support this policy, nor do any of the 15 organisations which I represent directly support this policy. Oooh! I am not aware that we can have proxy for PDP discussions too. Once those issues are rectified, I will *consider* support for the policy, but the above points are deal breakers for me ? after that, consideration can be given. --Arnaud Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com] Sent: 01 November 2016 19:10 To: ALAIN AINA > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? My Contribution through the lines of this message 2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA >: Hello, On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or naive.. Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide realistic ways of doing this that contain *detailed* proposals of how this would be accomplished and what the end results are. There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non productive discussions. The policy proposal was introduced on the 18 May 2016, and we have had these discussions. RPD and the AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available. +1 @Alain Yes Andrew, we had good discussions and a new version of the proposal which incorporated the changes was posted Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the link below : http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal. ==== "Just a question about the audit policy?. Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules? Thanks" === regards Now that you have asked again, see below... See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables Policy proposals do not dictate implementation, but describe principles to action. The policy proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very clear on parties responsibilities. http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa The policy proposal says : === 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in accordance with the non-exhaustive list below: * Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing table. * Breach of AFRINIC policies. * Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and AFRINIC. * Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks have not been transferred. * Unauthorized transfers of resources. === Looking at the global Internet routing table at a given time is an option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table without being used. Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here. What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified needs and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are bound to collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below. === (b) Cooperation: (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service. (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering resources already assigned to it. (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may: 1. entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC; 2. be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and future assignment or allocation of numbering resources; 3. lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by AFRINIC. === Investigated members to provide information and data to convince AFRINIC which may not need to do much. ?Say what you do, do what you say and prove it." b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are meant to come from AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the RSA. This proposal is just guidelines on how to implement it. But if there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to AFRINIC staff to say so. The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall co-chairs request one ? c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy I remembered the discussions on possible abuse on the ?reported? class of the policy proposal. === 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: 1. They have requested the review themselves or 2. there has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. === This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of known abuses. People have been complaining about flaws in current policies, practices which have been abused by some members. d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis to all reviews. Questioning applications approved by Hostmasters is a different matter. I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, Ah bon ? I have not heard that. But in case this exist, I would expect this policy proposal to help clear the point. vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference. There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further analysis and readings of the data. ?Alain Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this discussion. Andrew _______________________________________________ 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: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Tue Nov 1 20:49:08 2016 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (abel ELITCHA) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 20:49:08 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello, I was in the room in Gaborone and follow the pre voting discussions as well as the votes results. It is a bit weird that the board appoints a candidate who has served *two terms* in the position and was voted out for the *same* mandate. It weakens the system like all forms of inbreeding. It is like a board vs community. I also don't think this recycling is healthy for our emerging community. Thank you. --Abel 2016-11-01 19:16 GMT+00:00 Jackson Muthili : > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Walubengo J wrote: > > @Muthili, > > > > ..rejection? > > > > I do not remember AfriNIC elections being held to reject anyone. The > vote > > is always held to elect not reject candidates who have shown the > willingness > > to serve on volunteer basis. > > A vote is held to elect. You may sugarcoat anyway you want but the one > not elected got rejected. Or refused or ignored whatever word you > please. And there usually are reasons why someone gets voted in, and > why someone else doesn't. That is why there was a vote. > > > Not winning is not the same as being rejected. > > Of course it is the same if there was a vote. > > > Last time I checked very > > useful members of community were not elected in the recent past but > continue > > to engage positively. > > Without a doubt. > > > Alain A, Badru, Paulos never made it back to the Board. I did not know > > that, that meant community had rejected them. > > Of course it means members rejected them. > > > Maybe we change our bylaws to > > reflect this new reasoning? > > If the community voted Fiona out of a role, this was obvious they did > not want her in. > > If board on the other hand have reinstated her to the same role that > the community did not want her in, interpret it the way you wish but > this is a sign of something not right on the board part. In the 50 > something countries on our continent, nobody else, other than a person > voted out, could come in to serve the same role? > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Best regards, --Komi A. Elitcha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 1 22:26:35 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:26:35 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Nov 1, 2016, at 08:39 , Janvier NGNOULAYE wrote: > > Hi Jackson, > I'll just take a simple example among a thousand: In 2008 in US, Hillary Clinton lost the primary election against Obama, but once Obama elected, he has taken her as the Minister of Foreign Relations. This is a small nit, but the US does not have a Minister of Foreign Relations (or a minister of anything to my knowledge). Hillary Clinton was appointed as Secretary of State. She had also previously been elected as a Senator representing the state of New York. I think she is likely to be the next POTUS as well. Owen > At that time he thought that she was the best to handle many internal and external situations. > In the other hand, for this matter, we have here a technical position, the community election has more a political perspective which is also good, while the Board appointment considers a tech skill and a long experience on the topics for instance on (Post)IANA transition, inter-RIR operations, etc. > And the end we have a team with a complete skill for the job. > So just keep trusting the Board and let's move forward. > > Warm regards, > Janvier Ngnoulaye > Afrinic Member > > 2016-11-01 13:09 GMT+01:00 Jackson Muthili >: > Why does the board appoint someone that community rejected in a public > vote? Did board consider reasons behind community rejection of Fiona? > Has board decided to neglect the opinion of the community therefore? > Is Fiona the only one in the whole continent that board could appoint > to the position after she lost community trust in the same position? > > Doesnt the board owe community an explanation for this action? > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 1:29 PM, Mark Elkins > wrote: > > Congratulations on your appointment Fiona. > > Please keep up the great work and representation that AFRINIC has on the > > ASO AC. > > > > On 01/11/2016 12:14, Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> ** > >> > >> *Dear Community,* > >> > >> * > >> > >> There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC > >> Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered > >> three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. > >> > >> > >> I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. > >> Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year > >> term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. > >> Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and > >> continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected > >> by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will > >> change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st > >> January 2017. > >> > >> > >> You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS > >> summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 > >> to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative > >> elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. > >> > >> Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins > >> for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO > >> NC/ASO AC. > >> > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> > >> > >> Sunday Folayan > >> > >> Chair, AFRINIC Board* > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -------------------------------------------------- > >> Sunday Adekunle Folayan > >> Managing Director > >> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) > >> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria > >> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 > >> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng , sfolayan at gmail.com > >> --------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Members-Discuss mailing list > >> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > >> > > > > -- > > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 1 22:37:07 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:37:07 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8717F69F-336A-403D-A2F2-D7510D4AB0E4@delong.com> > On Nov 1, 2016, at 12:16 , Jackson Muthili wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Walubengo J wrote: >> @Muthili, >> >> ..rejection? >> >> I do not remember AfriNIC elections being held to reject anyone. The vote >> is always held to elect not reject candidates who have shown the willingness >> to serve on volunteer basis. > > A vote is held to elect. You may sugarcoat anyway you want but the one > not elected got rejected. Or refused or ignored whatever word you > please. And there usually are reasons why someone gets voted in, and > why someone else doesn't. That is why there was a vote. No Jackson, this simply isn?t true. Getting more votes means you were favored by more people. It doesn?t imply in any way that anyone voting was opposed to your holding the position. Of course, it is likely in any case that some were opposed and some were in favor and others may have been neutral. In the best of circumstances, you have two or more candidates all of whom are well liked by the majority of the community, but only one can be elected. Do you truly think this necessarily means that the other 2 were rejected, or did the electorate simply find the one who was elected slightly more appealing? Consider the possibility of a three-candidate election with 376 voters. The candidate elected gets 126 votes. The other two each get 125. Does this mean that one person can decide for the entire community that two people are ?rejected? by the entire community? This is absurd. Heck, even if we consider this logically without the one-vote differential, consider that for each of the candidates, by your logic, there were approximately twice as many people rejecting them as favoring them. >> Not winning is not the same as being rejected. > > Of course it is the same if there was a vote. I think you are missing the point. Not winning is passive. It does not imply animosity towards the losing party. Rejection is active. It indicates actual active hostility towards the losing party. There may be hostility among some in the community towards Fiona or there may not be. Obviously you have some level of dislike for her being appointed. However, the election results only tell us that she did not win. That a plurality of the community expressed a preference for another candidate. >> Last time I checked very >> useful members of community were not elected in the recent past but continue >> to engage positively. > > Without a doubt. > >> Alain A, Badru, Paulos never made it back to the Board. I did not know >> that, that meant community had rejected them. > > Of course it means members rejected them. No, it means members did not select them. Not selecting something is not the same as rejecting it. >> Maybe we change our bylaws to >> reflect this new reasoning? > > If the community voted Fiona out of a role, this was obvious they did > not want her in. But the community did not vote Fiona out of a role. The community voted another candidate into the role which she was previously occupying. That expresses that more of the community wanted the other candidate fulfilling that role. It does not necessarily imply that the community wanted Fiona removed from that role. The only vote I am aware of anywhere that expresses rejection of an office holder is what is known as a ?Recall Election?. To the best of my knowledge, Fiona was not subjected to any such vote. > If board on the other hand have reinstated her to the same role that > the community did not want her in, interpret it the way you wish but > this is a sign of something not right on the board part. In the 50 > something countries on our continent, nobody else, other than a person > voted out, could come in to serve the same role? You start from a number of flawed assumptions and then build on that to state a flawed conclusion. The facts do not support either your incorrect assumptions about the meaning of the election in question, nor do they support your conclusion that the board has acted incorrectly. Owen From owen at delong.com Tue Nov 1 22:49:02 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:49:02 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: May I humbly suggest that the protections offered in ARIN NRPM Section 12 may be worth considering as an alternative mitigation for the protections Andrew seeks. I think there is value in allowing a violation to be reported without the identity of the reporter being visible to the subject. For example, if an employee of an organization knows that the organization is misusing resources, having their identity disclosed to their employer would likely put their job at risk and thus serve as a strong deterrent against such reporting. I don?t believe this is a desired outcome. OTOH, malicious reporting is also a valid risk as Andrew has pointed out. Going through an audit of a sizeable network is not a minor undertaking. IMHO, the necessary protections (none of which appear to be contained in the proposal as it stands) are as follows: 1. Audits should be in frequent. In the ARIN policy, IIRC, there is a maximum frequency of once every 2 years. 2. The RIR should perform an initial investigation of a complaint without significant effort required on the part of the subject. If the RIR finds probable cause for a more detailed investigation, then the subject should be involved in a more thorough audit. Absent probable cause, the investigation should be dropped without further waste of resources. 3. The RIR should have some ability to track repetitive unsubstantiated reports from a common source and should disregard future reports from such unreliable sources. Owen > On Nov 1, 2016, at 09:39 , Andrew Alston wrote: > > Arnaud, > > Let me be very clear ? > > I never expressed support for this policy ? I asked a question. > > I am COMPLETELY opposed to this policy, and will be until such time as the policy explicitly states that in the event of a complaint against a member, the member is informed when he is audited who complained and the grounds stated for the complaint. That is in line with internationally accepted practice that the accused may have the right to confront his accuser, and protects against malicious accusations for the sake of causing on going work for an organisation. > > It opens the door for legal action against an accuser by the accused, if the accused feels the accuser is lodging complaints that are malicious and unsubstantiated in nature, and it means that those who are complaining and demanding audits are doing so *backed by evidence* rather than because they feel they can. > > I also argue that any person who issues a complaint should be willing to subject themselves to automatic audit, which again, will cut down on unfounded complaints that are not backed by evidence. > > In addition to this, complaints should be submitted by *members* alone, they are the true stake holders, and I will oppose any policy that allows a random member of the community to submit arbitrary complaints without proof, evidence or proper substantiation. > > Further to this, 3.4 makes reference to unauthorised transfers. I can issue with auditing against something that is unauthorised when there is no process to authorise it. That needs re-wording until such time as there is a transfer policy. I also take issue with 3.4 that it is declared as a non-exhaustive list. That is an open door for abuse, define the reasons for audit and stick to them. > > I also take *HUGE* issue with 3.6 ? if you want 3.6 and you want to publish the names of companies that have been audited, firstly, you have to publish the names as well of the requesting party, and secondly, that would be a direct violation of the confidentiality agreements agreed to in the RSA which you yourself refer to in the policy. > > Those are my thoughts ? but until those issues are rectified ? I do not support this policy, nor do any of the 15 organisations which I represent directly support this policy. Once those issues are rectified, I will *consider* support for the policy, but the above points are deal breakers for me ? after that, consideration can be given. > > Andrew > > > > From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com] > Sent: 01 November 2016 19:10 > To: ALAIN AINA > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? > > My Contribution through the lines of this message > > 2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA >: > Hello, > > On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > > ? Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or naive.. > > > Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than me. Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide realistic ways of doing this that contain *detailed* proposals of how this would be accomplished and what the end results are. > > There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non productive discussions. > > The policy proposal was introduced on the 18 May 2016, and we have had these discussions. RPD and the AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available. > > +1 @Alain > Yes Andrew, we had good discussions and a new version of the proposal which incorporated the changes was posted Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the link below : > > http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic > > And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal. > > ==== > "Just a question about the audit policy?. > Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules? > > Thanks" > > === > > regards > > > Now that you have asked again, see below... > > > > See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy. > > a.) No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables > > > Policy proposals do not dictate implementation, but describe principles to action. > > The policy proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very clear on parties responsibilities. http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa > > The policy proposal says : > === > > 3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in accordance with the non-exhaustive list below: > > Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing table. > Breach of AFRINIC policies. > Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and AFRINIC. > Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks have not been transferred. > Unauthorized transfers of resources. > === > > Looking at the global Internet routing table at a given time is an option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table without being used. > Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here. What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified needs and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are bound to collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below. > > === > > (b) Cooperation: > > (i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service. > > (ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering resources already assigned to it. > > (iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may: > > entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC; > be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and future assignment or allocation of numbering resources; > lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by AFRINIC. > > === > > Investigated members to provide information and data to convince AFRINIC which may not need to do much. > > ?Say what you do, do what you say and prove it." > > > b.) No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are meant to come from > > > > AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the RSA. This proposal is just guidelines on how to implement it. But if there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to AFRINIC staff to say so. The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall co-chairs request one ? > > > > c.) No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy > > > > I remembered the discussions on possible abuse on the ?reported? class of the policy proposal. > > === > 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > They have requested the review themselves or > there has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. > === > > This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of known abuses. > > People have been complaining about flaws in current policies, practices which have been abused by some members. > > > d.) No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you want to make implications like that ? you need evidence. > > > > The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis to all reviews. Questioning applications approved by Hostmasters is a different matter. > > > I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere, > > Ah bon ? I have not heard that. But in case this exist, I would expect this policy proposal to help clear the point. > > > vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference. > > There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further analysis and readings of the data. > > ?Alain > > > > Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this discussion. > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From sergekbk at gmail.com Wed Nov 2 06:14:15 2016 From: sergekbk at gmail.com (sergekbk) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 07:14:15 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? Message-ID: Hello Owen, Thanks for those suggestions that will be taken into consideration. Kind Regards. Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Owen DeLong Date: 11/01/2016 23:49 (GMT+01:00) To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? May I humbly suggest that the protections offered in ARIN NRPM Section 12 may be worth considering as an alternative mitigation for the protections Andrew seeks. I think there is value in allowing a violation to be reported without the identity of the reporter being visible to the subject. For example, if an employee of an organization knows that the organization is misusing resources, having their identity disclosed to their employer would likely put their job at risk and thus serve as a strong deterrent against such reporting. I don?t believe this is a desired outcome. OTOH, malicious reporting is also a valid risk as Andrew has pointed out. Going through an audit of a sizeable network is not a minor undertaking. IMHO, the necessary protections (none of which appear to be contained in the proposal as it stands) are as follows: 1. Audits should be in frequent. In the ARIN policy, IIRC, there is a maximum frequency of once every 2 years. 2. The RIR should perform an initial investigation of a complaint without significant effort required on the part of the subject. If the RIR finds probable cause for a more detailed investigation, then the subject should be involved in a more thorough audit. Absent probable cause, the investigation should be dropped without further waste of resources. 3. The RIR should have some ability to track repetitive unsubstantiated reports from a common source and should disregard future reports from such unreliable sources. Owen On Nov 1, 2016, at 09:39 , Andrew Alston wrote: Arnaud,?Let me be very clear ??I never expressed support for this policy ? I asked a question.?I am COMPLETELY opposed to this policy, and will be until such time as the policy explicitly states that in the event of a complaint against a member, the member is informed when he is audited who complained and the grounds stated for the complaint.? That is in line with internationally accepted practice that the accused may have the right to confront his accuser, and protects against malicious accusations for the sake of causing on going work for an organisation.?It opens the door for legal action against an accuser by the accused, if the accused feels the accuser is lodging complaints that are malicious and unsubstantiated in nature, and it means that those who are complaining and demanding audits are doing so *backed by evidence* rather than because they feel they can.?I also argue that any person who issues a complaint should be willing to subject themselves to automatic audit, which again, will cut down on unfounded complaints that are not backed by evidence.?In addition to this, complaints should be submitted by *members* alone, they are the true stake holders, and I will oppose any policy that allows a random member of the community to submit arbitrary complaints without proof, evidence or proper substantiation.?Further to this, 3.4 makes reference to unauthorised transfers.? I can issue with auditing against something that is unauthorised when there is no process to authorise it. ?That needs re-wording until such time as there is a transfer policy. ??I also take issue with 3.4 that it is declared as a non-exhaustive list.? That is an open door for abuse, define the reasons for audit and stick to them.?I also take *HUGE* issue with 3.6 ? if you want 3.6 and you want to publish the names of companies that have been audited, firstly, you have to publish the names as well of the requesting party, and secondly, that would be a direct violation of the confidentiality agreements agreed to in the RSA which you yourself refer to in the policy.?Those are my thoughts ? but until those issues are rectified ? I do not support this policy, nor do any of the 15 organisations which I represent directly support this policy.? Once those issues are rectified, I will *consider* support for the policy, but the above points are deal breakers for me ? after that, consideration can be given.?Andrew???From:?Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com]? Sent:?01 November 2016 19:10 To:?ALAIN AINA Cc:?General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject:?Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact??My Contribution through the lines of this message??2016-11-01 15:31 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA :Hello,?On Oct 29, 2016, at 7:18 PM, Andrew Alston wrote:?????Yes. the usual story. You only know. Others are either clueless or naive..?Not at all, I?m sure there are plenty of people who may know better than me.? Unfortunately, as of yet, none of them have bothered to provide realistic ways of doing this that contain *detailed* proposals of how this would be accomplished and what the end results are.?There are plenty of people here who know far more than me and you , but resolve not to speak as you have made this a low floor, repetitive and non ?productive discussions.?The policy proposal was introduced ?on the?18 May 2016, and we have had ?these discussions. RPD ?and the ?AFRINIC-24 policy archives are available. +1 @Alain?Yes Andrew, we had good discussions? and a new version of the proposal? which? incorporated? the changes? was posted? Tuesday, 9 August 2016, the link below :http://www.afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1827-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic?And I understood trough your e-mail posted on 14 October 2016, which is cuts below, you finally express support to this Policy proposal.?===="Just a question about the audit policy?.?Is it agreed that if we have such a policy, we should also audit the v6 assignments people are holding that should be announced under the needs based policy rules?Thanks"===regards ??Now ?that you have asked again, see below... ?See Alain, the difference here, I ask for hard facts and data ? and when I?m asked for such I provide it ? but I will not accept vague positions and unsubstantiated nonsense as the grounds for implementing a policy.?a.)????No one has yet proposed how these audits are meant to be realistically done beyond looking at the routing tables?Policy proposals do not ?dictate implementation, but describe principles to action.?The policy ?proposal aims to seek compliance to RSA which all members sign before applying for the number ressources. Section 4 of the RSA is very clear on parties responsibilities.?http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa?The policy proposal ?says :===3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in accordance with the non-exhaustive list below:Unjustified lack of visibility of the resource on the global routing table.Breach of AFRINIC policies.Breach of the provisions of the registration service agreement or other legal agreements between the organization holding the resource and AFRINIC.Evidence that an organisation is no more operating and its blocks have not been transferred.Unauthorized transfers of resources.===?Looking at the global ?Internet routing table at a given time is an option. Visibility or not in the global Internet Routing Table gives an indication of how to reach the destination, but does not tell about utilisation. A prefix can easily be seen in the Global Internet Table without ?being used.??Utilisation in compliance with RSA and policies is what is sought here.? What AFRINIC will be trying to establish is utilisation based on justified ?needs ?and compliance with RSA. In doing so, Members are ?bound to collaborate with AFRINIC as said in section 4.(4) below.?===(b) Cooperation:(i) An applicant receiving service under an agreement is at all times bound to provide to AFRINIC such information, assistance and cooperation as may be reasonably required by the latter in the provision of the service.(ii) Such request for information may also be made where AFRINIC is investigating (reviewing) the applicant's utilisation of the numbering resources already assigned to it.(iii) Failure by the applicant, to comply with a request made at above may:entail revocation or withholding of the service supplied by AFRINIC;be taken into account by AFRINIC in its evaluation for further and future assignment or allocation of numbering resources;lead to the closure of an LIR and termination of the agreement by AFRINIC.?===?Investigated members to provide ?information and data to convince AFRINIC which may not need to do ?much.??Say what you do, do what you say and prove it."??b.)????No one has proposed where the resources to do these audits are meant to come from??AFRINIC as RIR is already committed to do this review as prescribed in the RSA. This proposal is just ?guidelines on how to implement it.? But if there is a need for extra ressources, it is up to ?AFRINIC staff to say so. The PDP has provision for staff analysis on Policy proposal. Shall co-chairs request one ? c.)????No one has addressed the MASSIVE potential for abuse of this policy??I remembered ?the discussions on possible abuse on ?the ?reported? class of the policy proposal.?===3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:They have requested the review themselves orthere has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation.===?This has been addressed as we all trust AFRINIC to do the right job and as a community, we stand to revive policies and implementations in case of known abuses.?People have been complaining ?about flaws in current policies, practices which have been abused by some members. d.)????No one has addressed the fact that if an audit is needed ? then the original documentation is in question ? and at that point you are by the very nature of requesting the audit saying the hostmasters didn?t do their jobs when verifying the application in the first place ? and if you want to make implications like that ? you need evidence.??The application approved by Hostmasters at the first place serves as basis to all reviews. Questioning ?applications approved by Hostmasters is a different matter.??I am sick and tired of vague statements, vague insinuations, vague claims that everyone is stealing the space and taking it elsewhere,?Ah bon ? I have not heard that.? But in case this exist, I would expect this policy proposal to help clear the point. vague claims that presentations that report on one thing some how are actually reporting on other issues they don?t ever reference.??There are data in there, plus some conclusions. Nothing prevents further analysis and readings of the data.??Alain ?Come with real data ? real facts ? real figures ? and then let?s have this discussion.?Andrew?? _______________________________________________ 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: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Wed Nov 2 20:33:52 2016 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (abel ELITCHA) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 20:33:52 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hello Andrew, Comments inline. Le 1 nov. 2016 19:34, "Andrew Alston" a ?crit : > > Arnaud, > > > You are right ? proxies aren?t allowed at PDP ? except in this case, they are not proxies. I am the direct administrative contact for those organisations and hence I speak for each of them, one organisation at a time. > Participation in PDP discussions is by individual and not by organization. Hence the direct administrative contact role you have for organizations would be irrelevant in the policy discussions. Section 3.2.1 of the PDP says: =================== Openness All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may participate. There are no qualifications for participation. =================== *Co-chairs should correct me if I'm wrong*. Merci. --Abel > > Andrew > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Nov 2 22:26:56 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:26:56 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: I would recommend amending this to require that participants have an email address. It seems to me that useful participation in the PDP by stakeholders is better defined in this way in that if you have a stake in the internet, it?s hard to imagine a scenario in which you wouldn?t be able to obtain at least one email address at a sufficiently low burden. Further, I think that lacking an email address means an inability to participate in the PDWG mailing list. As such, I think it would preclude informed participation in the process. Owen > On Nov 2, 2016, at 13:33 , abel ELITCHA wrote: > > Hello Andrew, > > Comments inline. > > Le 1 nov. 2016 19:34, "Andrew Alston" > a ?crit : > > > > Arnaud, > > > > > > You are right ? proxies aren?t allowed at PDP ? except in this case, they are not proxies. I am the direct administrative contact for those organisations and hence I speak for each of them, one organisation at a time. > > > > Participation in PDP discussions is by individual and not by organization. Hence the direct administrative contact role you have for organizations would be irrelevant in the policy discussions. > > Section 3.2.1 of the PDP says: > > =================== > > Openness > > All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may participate. There are no qualifications for participation. > > =================== > > *Co-chairs should correct me if I'm wrong*. > > > > Merci. > > --Abel > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Nov 3 05:20:04 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 05:20:04 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Abel, The current 3.2.1 does not limit it to individuals, it says it is open to *everyone* including individuals. However, it does not say that ENTITIES are prohibited from participation in that capacity. Indeed, there is precedent for this ? Go back to any video of any PDP meeting and individuals have come to the microphone stating ?I am so and so and I am here in my personal capacity?, or ?I am so and so and I represent X? The moment you say everyone without limitation as is stated below, this I would argue is certainly inclusive of legal entities (human or otherwise), that wish to participate in that capacity. Andrew From: abel ELITCHA Date: Wednesday, 2 November 2016 at 23:33 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , Arnaud AMELINA Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? Hello Andrew, Comments inline. Le 1 nov. 2016 19:34, "Andrew Alston" > a ?crit : > > Arnaud, > > > You are right ? proxies aren?t allowed at PDP ? except in this case, they are not proxies. I am the direct administrative contact for those organisations and hence I speak for each of them, one organisation at a time. > Participation in PDP discussions is by individual and not by organization. Hence the direct administrative contact role you have for organizations would be irrelevant in the policy discussions. Section 3.2.1 of the PDP says: =================== Openness All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may participate. There are no qualifications for participation. =================== *Co-chairs should correct me if I'm wrong*. Merci. --Abel > > Andrew > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 10:52:11 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 10:52:11 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Alan. Looking forward to this new revision to see the progress level of the discussions on these points and how close are we moving to closing this important matter about improving accountability. Regards Arnaud Le 31 oct. 2016 16:01, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > Dear community, > > I expect to be able to post the next revision of the bylaws change > suggestions on Friday 4 November. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 15:41:40 2016 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (abel ELITCHA) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:41:40 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hi Andrew, Please look at comments inline. 2016-11-03 5:20 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston : > Abel, > > > > The current 3.2.1 does not limit it to individuals, it says it is open to * > *everyone** including individuals. However, it does not say that > ENTITIES are prohibited from participation in that capacity. > Participation in the PDP and the WG is not fee-based or organizationally defined, but based upon self-identification and active participation by individuals. Views expressed are personal view and do not represent contributor ORG view. > > > Indeed, there is precedent for this ? Go back to any video of any PDP > meeting and individuals have come to the microphone stating ?I am so and so > and I am here in my personal capacity?, or ?I am so and so and I represent > X? > What i see is as follow : For RIR related bodies (board, AC, staff?.), " I am X and speaking in my personal capacity? . They avoid misinterpretation as they wear also other hats. For Others : " I am Y, ORG A?, ? I am Z, I work for ORG B?. They use ORG for identification. > > > The moment you say everyone without limitation as is stated below, this I > would argue is certainly inclusive of legal entities (human or otherwise), > that wish to participate in that capacity. > If we want this interpretation, we shall make it clear and adopt the appropriate measures to implement it. The WG would need to check authentication / authorization to represent ORG they claim to represent. This would also imply appropriate management of *Conflict of Interest* and *IPR* on the contributions Do we need ORGs views in the PDP beyond the individual active participation ??? > > > Andrew > Merci. --Abel. > > > *From: *abel ELITCHA > *Date: *Wednesday, 2 November 2016 at 23:33 > *To: *Andrew Alston > *Cc: *General Discussions of AFRINIC , > Arnaud AMELINA > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed > up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? > > > > Hello Andrew, > > Comments inline. > > Le 1 nov. 2016 19:34, "Andrew Alston" a > ?crit : > > > > Arnaud, > > > > > > You are right ? proxies aren?t allowed at PDP ? except in this case, > they are not proxies. I am the direct administrative contact for those > organisations and hence I speak for each of them, one organisation at a > time. > > > > Participation in PDP discussions is by individual and not by organization. > Hence the direct administrative contact role you have for organizations > would be irrelevant in the policy discussions. > > Section 3.2.1 of the PDP says: > > =================== > > Openness > > All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may > participate. There are no qualifications for participation. > > =================== > > *Co-chairs should correct me if I'm wrong*. > > > > Merci. > > --Abel > > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > -- Best regards, --Komi A. Elitcha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Nov 4 17:23:57 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 17:23:57 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? In-Reply-To: References: <5B8BFC2C-1E79-400A-8CE5-88EF30027C26@delong.com> <81E5C7AC-B7BA-4DA0-865F-5FD4366E581D@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: We certainly do ? organisations may well take internal policy positions that are different from their employee personal positions and they have to have a way to have those heard. If anyone wants to check auth they can do so via the whois database if its doubted ? I don?t think we need to formalize this at all. Furthermore if anyone chooses to claim representation of an organisation that is false, the organisation would have direct recourse against that individual, so it would be a pretty stupid thing to do. I don?t understand the point about conflict of interest ? organisations have their views as individuals have their views and they are free to express them, where is the conflict? If an individual has a different opinion from his organisation he is free to state that he is speaking in his personal capacity and the conflict of interest between his opinion and the opinion of the organisation can be dealt with by that organisation, it is not the job of AfriNIC to deal with it. The PDP process already allows for *ANYONE* to participate, I happen to believe that includes organisations already and I don?t think we need anything changed to accommodate this. Andrew From: abel ELITCHA [mailto:kmw.elitcha at gmail.com] Sent: 04 November 2016 18:42 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? Hi Andrew, Please look at comments inline. 2016-11-03 5:20 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston >: Abel, The current 3.2.1 does not limit it to individuals, it says it is open to *everyone* including individuals. However, it does not say that ENTITIES are prohibited from participation in that capacity. Participation in the PDP and the WG is not fee-based or organizationally defined, but based upon self-identification and active participation by individuals. Views expressed are personal view and do not represent contributor ORG view. Indeed, there is precedent for this ? Go back to any video of any PDP meeting and individuals have come to the microphone stating ?I am so and so and I am here in my personal capacity?, or ?I am so and so and I represent X? What i see is as follow : For RIR related bodies (board, AC, staff?.), " I am X and speaking in my personal capacity? . They avoid misinterpretation as they wear also other hats. For Others : " I am Y, ORG A?, ? I am Z, I work for ORG B?. They use ORG for identification. The moment you say everyone without limitation as is stated below, this I would argue is certainly inclusive of legal entities (human or otherwise), that wish to participate in that capacity. If we want this interpretation, we shall make it clear and adopt the appropriate measures to implement it. The WG would need to check authentication / authorization to represent ORG they claim to represent. This would also imply appropriate management of *Conflict of Interest* and *IPR* on the contributions Do we need ORGs views in the PDP beyond the individual active participation ??? Andrew Merci. --Abel. From: abel ELITCHA > Date: Wednesday, 2 November 2016 at 23:33 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC >, Arnaud AMELINA > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact? Hello Andrew, Comments inline. Le 1 nov. 2016 19:34, "Andrew Alston" > a ?crit : > > Arnaud, > > > You are right ? proxies aren?t allowed at PDP ? except in this case, they are not proxies. I am the direct administrative contact for those organisations and hence I speak for each of them, one organisation at a time. > Participation in PDP discussions is by individual and not by organization. Hence the direct administrative contact role you have for organizations would be irrelevant in the policy discussions. Section 3.2.1 of the PDP says: =================== Openness All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may participate. There are no qualifications for participation. =================== *Co-chairs should correct me if I'm wrong*. Merci. --Abel > > Andrew > > > -- Best regards, --Komi A. Elitcha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Nov 4 18:26:23 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 23:56:23 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Dear community, Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial statements. I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and discussion. Alan Barrett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AFRINICRIRAccountability-ProposedBylawsChanges-20161104.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57517 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Nov 4 19:16:13 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 19:16:13 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Alan, I believe Point 5 may result in conflict with Article 13.4 that states that directors represent specific regions. For consistency 13.4 would also need modification. I believe that section 16 is also in conflict with the companies act. The companies act specifically states that a director may only be removed in a meeting dedicated to that purpose with that being the only item on the agenda. So while I have no problem with the community being able to recall a director, it must be through a dedicated meeting and not through the addition of an agenda item at a regular meeting. Other than that, all looks good Thanks Andrew From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] Sent: 04 November 2016 21:26 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes Dear community, Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial statements. I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and discussion. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ 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: From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Nov 4 19:19:28 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 22:19:28 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: <753FE9AB-549A-4611-BB0C-E8B967DE93DE@liquidtelecom.com> References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> <753FE9AB-549A-4611-BB0C-E8B967DE93DE@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: On 1 Nov 2016 17:51, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > if someone runs for election and loses, they should not be eligible to run again for a defined period (2 years or whatever), since based on this logic, they have been rejected? > -1 Andrew. My reasoning is that, running and losing an election doesnt necessarily translate into rejection. After all the loser tends to always also have a constituence. Losing an election simply means the one who won got more votes from the electorate and the one who lost or came 2nd got less votes. Folk who come 2nd or lose an election should never be stopped from running again because no one in this community has a right to stop anyone from contesting as many times as they can. > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Nov 4 19:37:11 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 22:37:11 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Alan, all, thanks for this! Few minor things. about 7. (on page 5) If I understand correctly, if we have "no more than two from the same sub-region" then we already have "no more than two from the same country" (because no country is in multiple sub-regions, and no director is from multiple countries). question about 9. "for the avoidance of doubt: not even temporarily" ? 17. (Intro) typos s/dign/sign/ s/signatire/signature/ s/Baord/Board/ Nice weekend to all! Frank On 11/4/2016 9:26 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > Dear community, > > Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. > > In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not > propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few > additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am > proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual > financial statements. > > I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions > at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further > review and discussion. > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss > mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Nov 4 19:59:57 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 19:59:57 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> <753FE9AB-549A-4611-BB0C-E8B967DE93DE@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Noah, I happen to completely agree with you ? As I said in my original email, I don?t agree with the rejection sentiment at all, but I believe if others wanted to walk down that route, they should do so fully with the caveats I mentioned, and be aware of the dangers it poses. Andrew From: Noah Date: Friday, 4 November 2016 at 22:19 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Walubengo J , General Discussions of AFRINIC , "members-discuss at afrinic.net" , Mark Elkins , Jackson Muthili Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC On 1 Nov 2016 17:51, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > if someone runs for election and loses, they should not be eligible to run again for a defined period (2 years or whatever), since based on this logic, they have been rejected? > -1 Andrew. My reasoning is that, running and losing an election doesnt necessarily translate into rejection. After all the loser tends to always also have a constituence. Losing an election simply means the one who won got more votes from the electorate and the one who lost or came 2nd got less votes. Folk who come 2nd or lose an election should never be stopped from running again because no one in this community has a right to stop anyone from contesting as many times as they can. > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Nov 5 03:24:52 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 20:24:52 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: The ?insertion? method described in point 5 is certainly confusing to integrate in one?s head with the changes proposed in point 4. While I have no vote in these matters, I will state my continued objection to term limits. If the membership does not want a director to remain, they are perfectly capable of removing that director from his office at the end of his term by simply electing someone else. Term limits deprive the voters of choice. They cause at least as much damage as they do good in the vast majority of cases. On the other hand, I do support the limit on the number of directors from a common organization and believe that 2 is a reasonable number with the current composition of the board. It may be worth expressing this rather than as a hard number, as a fraction of the board in order to avoid a dangling dependency that doesn?t get corrected should the makeup of the board (number of members, etc.) be changed in a way that affects this consideration. In the case of 13.8(c), I would not be opposed to reducing this provision to 1. However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and this provision. At the end of 13.8, I think the phrasing ?For the avoidance of doubt, the limitations enumerated in the above paragraph shall not apply to the CEO.? creates more doubt than it avoids. For a plain-text reading of that sentence would leave one thinking that they do apply to other board members elected from the same {company,subregion,country} as the CEO, and leave it unclear as to whether the CEO is counted in that tally or not. I believe the intent is not to count the CEO as a board member for determining such conflicts. I would propose the alternative wording: ?For the avoidance of doubt, the CEO shall be considered to come only from AfriNIC itself as a company and shall not be considered to be from any particular sub-region or country in determining any conflicts above. The CEO shall neither be removed by any of these provisions, nor shall his presence or history be used as a reason to disqualify or remove any other board member or candidate.? Point 8, I believe this should be made broader to cover not only transactions with the company, but also any other potential conflict of interest such as being affiliated with an organization which may substantially or disproportionately benefit from a particular policy proposal in front of the board for ratification, etc. Perhaps: 15.6 A director of the company shall, where he has a potential conflict of interest in any item brought before the board, disclose such conflict to the board. Said director shall recuse himself from voting on any such matter before the board where a conflict exists. Point 10, I would suggest limiting the reappointment term not to the full term of re-election, but rather, until the next general meeting of the membership where directors are to be appointed. I realize this is a change from current existing practice, but I believe it to be a more appropriate course of action in the event that a qualified candidate is not found in time for the election as it will help to reduce the duration of incumbency through apathy. Point 11, No objection, except that I believe that the ability of the board to serve as a check and balance on the nominating committee for compliance with the proposed provisions of 13.8 may be worth preserving. I do not believe the board should generally be able to ?edit? the slate of candidates. Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of ?endorsement? is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most importantly, withheld. Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60 day comment period thereafter. Owen > On Nov 4, 2016, at 12:16 , Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > I believe Point 5 may result in conflict with Article 13.4 that states that directors represent specific regions. For consistency 13.4 would also need modification. > > I believe that section 16 is also in conflict with the companies act. The companies act specifically states that a director may only be removed in a meeting dedicated to that purpose with that being the only item on the agenda. So while I have no problem with the community being able to recall a director, it must be through a dedicated meeting and not through the addition of an agenda item at a regular meeting. > > Other than that, all looks good > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] > Sent: 04 November 2016 21:26 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes > > Dear community, > > Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. > > In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial statements. > > I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and discussion. > > Alan Barrett > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mhtguinassou at gmail.com Sat Nov 5 05:19:15 2016 From: mhtguinassou at gmail.com (TIDJANI Mahamat Adoum) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 06:19:15 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> <753FE9AB-549A-4611-BB0C-E8B967DE93DE@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: F?licitation ? tous les membres de la nouvelle ?quipe. Tidjani MAHAMAT ADOUM Ing?nieur R?seaux T?l?coms Cellule Fibre Optique (SOTEL-TCHAD) Charg? des Communication d'IGF-CHAD S?cretaire G?n?ral d'IPV6 Tasck Force Chad Charg? des Formations ISOC-Chad Pr?sident du Reseaux des Jeunes Patriotes Ligne Direct: (00235) 66273348 ou 77306979 Ligne secourt: (00235) 62306979 ou 92306979 E-mail.S: tidjanicapi at hotmail.fr 2016-11-04 20:59 GMT+01:00 Andrew Alston : > Noah, > > > > I happen to completely agree with you J As I said in my original email, I > don?t agree with the rejection sentiment at all, but I believe if others > wanted to walk down that route, they should do so fully with the caveats I > mentioned, and be aware of the dangers it poses. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Noah > *Date: *Friday, 4 November 2016 at 22:19 > *To: *Andrew Alston > *Cc: *Walubengo J , General Discussions of AFRINIC < > community-discuss at afrinic.net>, "members-discuss at afrinic.net" < > members-discuss at afrinic.net>, Mark Elkins , Jackson > Muthili > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board > Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC > > > > On 1 Nov 2016 17:51, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > > > > if someone runs for election and loses, they should not be eligible to > run again for a defined period (2 years or whatever), since based on this > logic, they have been rejected? > > > > -1 Andrew. > > My reasoning is that, running and losing an election doesnt necessarily > translate into rejection. After all the loser tends to always also have a > constituence. > > Losing an election simply means the one who won got more votes from the > electorate and the one who lost or came 2nd got less votes. > > Folk who come 2nd or lose an election should never be stopped from running > again because no one in this community has a right to stop anyone from > contesting as many times as they can. > > > > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 5 05:36:21 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 11:06:21 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On 5 Nov 2016, at 01:07, Frank Habicht wrote: > about 7. (on page 5) > If I understand correctly, if we have "no more than two from the same > sub-region" then we already have "no more than two from the same > country" (because no country is in multiple sub-regions, and no director > is from multiple countries). That?s true. However, I wanted to put the text out for comment in case there are changes to the numbers. > question about 9. > "for the avoidance of doubt: not even temporarily? ? Yes, the intent is that no person may hold more than one of these positions, even temporarily. > 17. (Intro) typos > s/dign/sign/ > s/signatire/signature/ > s/Baord/Board/ Thanks. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 5 07:01:57 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 12:31:57 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> > On 5 Nov 2016, at 08:54, Owen DeLong wrote: > > The ?insertion? method described in point 5 is certainly confusing to integrate in one?s head with the changes proposed in point 4. I intended to make 4 and 5 independent, so 4 could pass even if 5 fails. I?ll try to find a better way of doing that. > While I have no vote in these matters, I will state my continued objection to term limits. If the membership does not want a director to remain, they are perfectly capable of removing that director from his office at the end of his term by simply electing someone else. > > Term limits deprive the voters of choice. They cause at least as much damage as they do good in the vast majority of cases. I understand, and I still don?t see rough agreement on whether or not there should be a limit, or what the limit should be. > On the other hand, I do support the limit on the number of directors from a common organization and believe that 2 is a reasonable number with the current composition of the board. It may be worth expressing this rather than as a hard number, as a fraction of the board in order to avoid a dangling dependency that doesn?t get corrected should the makeup of the board (number of members, etc.) be changed in a way that affects this consideration. I thnk that a fixed number ?2? would still be fine even if the number of elected members increased from 8 to 50, or decreased from 8 to 4. Perhaps not if it decreased to 3, but I don?t think it?s worth worrying about that unlikely possibility. > In the case of 13.8(c), I would not be opposed to reducing this provision to 1. No more than one from any particular country? I?d be fine with that. Let?s hear more opinions. > However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and this provision. When there?s an election, it?s usually clear whether or not winning the election would violate one of the per-company, per-subregion, or per-country quota limits, but multiple simultaneous elections could cause confusion. Do we need to legislate an order of priority, such as elections for regional seats 1 to 6 take priority over elections for non-regional seats 7 and 8 when deciding which winner should be disqualified on grounds of violating one of the quota limits? When an elected Director changes their employment or place of residence, such that these limits are violated, then somebody has to resign, but is it the one who is moving, or the one who was already there? I don?t see a need to legislate this. > At the end of 13.8, I think the phrasing ?For the avoidance of doubt, the limitations enumerated in the above paragraph shall not apply to the CEO.? creates more doubt than it avoids. I agree. I?ll find better wording. > Point 8, I believe this should be made broader to cover not only transactions with the company, but also any other potential conflict of interest such as being affiliated with an organization which may substantially or disproportionately benefit from a particular policy proposal in front of the board for ratification, etc. > > Perhaps: > > 15.6 A director of the company shall, where he has a potential conflict of interest in any item brought before the board, disclose such conflict to the board. Said director shall recuse himself from voting on any such matter before the board where a conflict exists. The term ?transaction? is intended to refer to anything that the Board does (not only financial transactions), but I prefer your wording (?any item? instead of ?transaction?). > Point 10, I would suggest limiting the reappointment term not to the full term of re-election, but rather, until the next general meeting of the membership where directors are to be appointed. I realize this is a change from current existing practice, but I believe it to be a more appropriate course of action in the event that a qualified candidate is not found in time for the election as it will help to reduce the duration of incumbency through apathy. So, if there is no suitable replacement candidate, then the incumbent gets a one-year extension, not a three-year extension. I like that, and I might be able to find suitable wording. > Point 11, No objection, except that I believe that the ability of the board to serve as a check and balance on the nominating committee for compliance with the proposed provisions of 13.8 may be worth preserving. I do not believe the board should generally be able to ?edit? the slate of candidates. NomCom reports to the Board, which I think is sufficient. > Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of ?endorsement? is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most importantly, withheld. The vagueness was already present. I think that community endorsement of policy created by the Board should require majority consent. Perhaps reversing a Board decision on resource policy should require a vote by the Members? > Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60 day comment period thereafter. I think you misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is that (1) the Board discusses proposed fee changes with the community, for an unspecified time period; (2) the Board finalises the fee changes; (3) there is at least 60 days notice before the fee changes go into effect. Alan Barrett From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Nov 5 09:23:21 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 14:53:21 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Alan, Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be needed; We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change the fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). Even though I have no problem with your proposed changes. 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who is subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, just want to be sure that was your intent. Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used often/never(well I hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO to be opened to such removal process (even though i know it's implied). In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), it may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 4 Nov 2016 23:57, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > Dear community, > > Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. > > In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not > propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few > additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am > proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial > statements. > > I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at the > AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and > discussion. > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 5 10:29:08 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 15:59:08 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <8902AD13-3AAA-425A-80BB-AE28C4903CAD@afrinic.net> > On 5 Nov 2016, at 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Alan, > > Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: > > 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be needed; We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. I?ll see what comments I get, and either change it to a limit of 1 per country, or let the limit of 2 per sub-region be enough. > 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change the fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). Even though I have no problem with your proposed changes. I suspect that we can?t legally prevent the registered members from changing the bylaws, but we can make it clear that that would be against the intent of the bylaws. > 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who is subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, just want to be sure that was your intent. We allow Directors standing for re-election to vote for themselves, so why not allow a Director to vote against his own removal? The requirement to recuse oneself for conflict of interest applies only to actions as a Director, not to actions as a Registered Member, even though the same person fills both roles. > Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used often/never(well I hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO to be opened to such removal process (even though i know it's implied). This should be ?an elected Director may be removed ??. I?ll fix it. > In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), it may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. I think it?s clear enough that the remaining Directors would have the right to fill the casual vacancies in terms of Bylaws article 13.14. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 5 10:36:43 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 16:06:43 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On 5 Nov 2016, at 00:46, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > I believe Point 5 may result in conflict with Article 13.4 that states that directors represent specific regions. For consistency 13.4 would also need modification. Perhaps we should change 13.4 to say that the Directors in seats 1 to 6 should ?reside in?, not ?represent?, the six sub-regions. Historically, we have had Directors who changed their place of residence after being elected, such that they no longer resided in the relevant sub-region, but they did not resign. > I believe that section 16 is also in conflict with the companies act. The companies act specifically states that a director may only be removed in a meeting dedicated to that purpose with that being the only item on the agenda. So while I have no problem with the community being able to recall a director, it must be through a dedicated meeting and not through the addition of an agenda item at a regular meeting. I?ll check on that, and make a suitable chaneg if necessary. Alan Barrett From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sat Nov 5 13:24:37 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:24:37 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Alan, I?m kinda on the fence about the changes referred to below. Historically, we have said that regional representation means that at the time of election, the individual must be domiciled in the region for each he is standing. Looking at the bylaws, this seems to be a requirement that was introduced through the election guidelines rather than the bylaws (which I have no problem with, but it does need to be made clear) If we change it to reside in, this cleans this up and it means that should a director relocate outside of the region, he would have to resign and his seat would become vacant (other than in the case of independent directors) ? I think that would probably be a good thing, but it does further entrench the concept of regional representation which is the exact thing that we are attempting to change with the other change that says irrespective of the region the director serves the entire continent. Yes, by the letter of the wording there is no conflict here, but it would seem the spirit of the words conflicts. At the same time, if we leave it unchanged, it could easily be argued that regional representation is not defined by where an individual is domiciled, but by where his nominators are domiciled. By the letter of the bylaws, there would be nothing stopping individuals in a particular region nominating an individual to represent their region even if that individual was resident on the other side of the planet. I almost lean more towards this, since in a true bottom up approach, I feel the electorate should have the right to have whoever they want represent them, provided the individual passes the test of being able to legally serve in that capacity. Would need to give long and hard thought to this before deciding which side of this debate I fall on ? Andrew On 05/11/2016, 13:36, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > On 5 Nov 2016, at 00:46, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > I believe Point 5 may result in conflict with Article 13.4 that states that directors represent specific regions. For consistency 13.4 would also need modification. Perhaps we should change 13.4 to say that the Directors in seats 1 to 6 should ?reside in?, not ?represent?, the six sub-regions. Historically, we have had Directors who changed their place of residence after being elected, such that they no longer resided in the relevant sub-region, but they did not resign. > I believe that section 16 is also in conflict with the companies act. The companies act specifically states that a director may only be removed in a meeting dedicated to that purpose with that being the only item on the agenda. So while I have no problem with the community being able to recall a director, it must be through a dedicated meeting and not through the addition of an agenda item at a regular meeting. I?ll check on that, and make a suitable chaneg if necessary. Alan Barrett _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 7 00:21:59 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 16:21:59 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> > On Nov 5, 2016, at 00:01 , Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 5 Nov 2016, at 08:54, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> The ?insertion? method described in point 5 is certainly confusing to integrate in one?s head with the changes proposed in point 4. > > I intended to make 4 and 5 independent, so 4 could pass even if 5 fails. I?ll try to find a better way of doing that. Perhaps instead of specific numbers in each case, text which makes clear the intended sequence and the use of alphabetic sequence indicators to be replaced by appropriate numbers upon implementation? > >> While I have no vote in these matters, I will state my continued objection to term limits. If the membership does not want a director to remain, they are perfectly capable of removing that director from his office at the end of his term by simply electing someone else. >> >> Term limits deprive the voters of choice. They cause at least as much damage as they do good in the vast majority of cases. > > I understand, and I still don?t see rough agreement on whether or not there should be a limit, or what the limit should be. As I understand it, absent consensus (or at least majority vote), status quo is the result. Further, AIUI, status quo is no term limits. Personally I am fine with that outcome. Those that wish to change things have the burden to convince a sufficient fraction of the eligible voters otherwise. >> On the other hand, I do support the limit on the number of directors from a common organization and believe that 2 is a reasonable number with the current composition of the board. It may be worth expressing this rather than as a hard number, as a fraction of the board in order to avoid a dangling dependency that doesn?t get corrected should the makeup of the board (number of members, etc.) be changed in a way that affects this consideration. > > I thnk that a fixed number ?2? would still be fine even if the number of elected members increased from 8 to 50, or decreased from 8 to 4. Perhaps not if it decreased to 3, but I don?t think it?s worth worrying about that unlikely possibility. I would argue that with a decrease to 4, it might be desirable to set that limit at 1. OTOH, if it increased to 50, then I would not be so concerned if 3, 4, or even as many as 8 came from a single organization. > >> In the case of 13.8(c), I would not be opposed to reducing this provision to 1. > > No more than one from any particular country? I?d be fine with that. Let?s hear more opinions. > >> However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and this provision. > > When there?s an election, it?s usually clear whether or not winning the election would violate one of the per-company, per-subregion, or per-country quota limits, but multiple simultaneous elections could cause confusion. Do we need to legislate an order of priority, such as elections for regional seats 1 to 6 take priority over elections for non-regional seats 7 and 8 when deciding which winner should be disqualified on grounds of violating one of the quota limits? > > When an elected Director changes their employment or place of residence, such that these limits are violated, then somebody has to resign, but is it the one who is moving, or the one who was already there? I don?t see a need to legislate this. If you do not legislate it, then what do you do when it comes up? In my experience, AfriNIC has a history of wasting substantial time and energy on dealing with situations not properly accounted for in its election procedures and/or open questions such as this when triggered. As such, I?d much rather see a policy considered by the community and adopted than a ?we?ll make it up as we go along if it becomes necessary? approach. >> At the end of 13.8, I think the phrasing ?For the avoidance of doubt, the limitations enumerated in the above paragraph shall not apply to the CEO.? creates more doubt than it avoids. > > I agree. I?ll find better wording. Sounds like I failed to do so, but at least I tried. ;-) >> Point 8, I believe this should be made broader to cover not only transactions with the company, but also any other potential conflict of interest such as being affiliated with an organization which may substantially or disproportionately benefit from a particular policy proposal in front of the board for ratification, etc. >> >> Perhaps: >> >> 15.6 A director of the company shall, where he has a potential conflict of interest in any item brought before the board, disclose such conflict to the board. Said director shall recuse himself from voting on any such matter before the board where a conflict exists. > > The term ?transaction? is intended to refer to anything that the Board does (not only financial transactions), but I prefer your wording (?any item? instead of ?transaction?). More than just the term transaction, there was the wording that implied it was a transaction between the specific board member and the company rather than any particular agenda item before the entire board, but sounds like we are on the same page at this point anyway, so I think that?s good. >> Point 10, I would suggest limiting the reappointment term not to the full term of re-election, but rather, until the next general meeting of the membership where directors are to be appointed. I realize this is a change from current existing practice, but I believe it to be a more appropriate course of action in the event that a qualified candidate is not found in time for the election as it will help to reduce the duration of incumbency through apathy. > > So, if there is no suitable replacement candidate, then the incumbent gets a one-year extension, not a three-year extension. I like that, and I might be able to find suitable wording. Well, it would be one year unless a special general meeting were called prior to the AGM, in which case, it might be even shorter as I have proposed it. >> Point 11, No objection, except that I believe that the ability of the board to serve as a check and balance on the nominating committee for compliance with the proposed provisions of 13.8 may be worth preserving. I do not believe the board should generally be able to ?edit? the slate of candidates. > > NomCom reports to the Board, which I think is sufficient. I?ll defer to your and Ashok?s greater expertise in interpreting such things in the context of Mauritian law. >> Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of ?endorsement? is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most importantly, withheld. > > The vagueness was already present. This isn?t a surprise. However, I think taking this opportunity to remove that vagueness is worth consideration at least. > I think that community endorsement of policy created by the Board should require majority consent. Perhaps reversing a Board decision on resource policy should require a vote by the Members? So if I understand what you are proposing here, it would go to the PDWG meeting, where the community would vote on it. Majority of those who happen to be in the room would uphold the board?s decision. Absent that, it would then subsequently go to a vote of the membership requiring a majority of the membership to vote against it in order to reverse the board?s decision. To me, this presents multiple possible outcomes: 1. Community endorses ? Everything is fine, board decision stands. 2. Community rejects, membership does not reject ? Unclear what happens, I presume board decision stands? 3. Community rejects, membership rejects ? Board decision is? { Remanded to board for revision, Overturned, Rescinded pending corrective action by the board }? Also, over what period is the membership election held if necessary? How is voting handled in such case (mechanics)? Not trying to be argumentative here, just thinking through the potential outcomes and thinking somewhat aloud in hopes of getting input from other stakeholders. I would propose that for any such action, judging strictly by vote of those present in the PDWG meeting or members present at the General meeting isn?t entirely good. I?d prefer to see the issue include input from the PDWG mailing list, and, if applicable, the members-discuss and/or afrinic-discuss mailing lists as well. I?d like to see policies brought forth this way subjected to the same standard for consensus as policies developed through the normal process, the only difference being that these policies have a presumption of consensus by board fiat until that presumption is falsified by the PDWG upon verification of that falsification by the PDWG co-chairs. > >> Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60 day comment period thereafter. > > I think you misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is that (1) the Board discusses proposed fee changes with the community, for an unspecified time period; (2) the Board finalises the fee changes; (3) there is at least 60 days notice before the fee changes go into effect. You are correct, I did misunderstand, as that?s not what I remember reading in the proposal. I?m fine with what you state above so long as there is a specification that step 1 be for a minimum of 60 days and include discussion at one or more PPMs. Owen > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 7 00:30:19 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 16:30:19 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4900190A-6FAF-485B-BD83-8AAFDE5E8852@delong.com> Should the CEO be exempt if he/she becomes sufficiently unpopular with the membership that they are able to recall him through this process? No disrespect to the current CEO intended (and I can?t imagine such a petition succeeding against him anyway), but I see no reason the position should be exempt from such a challenge. Owen > On Nov 5, 2016, at 02:23 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Alan, > > Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: > > 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be needed; We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. > > 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change the fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). Even though I have no problem with your proposed changes. > > 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who is subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, just want to be sure that was your intent. > > Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used often/never(well I hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO to be opened to such removal process (even though i know it's implied). > > In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), it may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > > On 4 Nov 2016 23:57, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: > Dear community, > > Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. > > In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial statements. > > I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and discussion. > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 7 00:31:21 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 16:31:21 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: I would support that change. Owen > On Nov 5, 2016, at 03:36 , Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 5 Nov 2016, at 00:46, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> Hi Alan, >> >> I believe Point 5 may result in conflict with Article 13.4 that states that directors represent specific regions. For consistency 13.4 would also need modification. > > Perhaps we should change 13.4 to say that the Directors in seats 1 to 6 should ?reside in?, not ?represent?, the six sub-regions. > > Historically, we have had Directors who changed their place of residence after being elected, such that they no longer resided in the relevant sub-region, but they did not resign. > >> I believe that section 16 is also in conflict with the companies act. The companies act specifically states that a director may only be removed in a meeting dedicated to that purpose with that being the only item on the agenda. So while I have no problem with the community being able to recall a director, it must be through a dedicated meeting and not through the addition of an agenda item at a regular meeting. > > I?ll check on that, and make a suitable chaneg if necessary. > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Nov 7 03:43:35 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:13:35 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <4900190A-6FAF-485B-BD83-8AAFDE5E8852@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4900190A-6FAF-485B-BD83-8AAFDE5E8852@delong.com> Message-ID: Hi Owen, In the interest of good governance and proper respect of process and structure, I believe that the ability to hire and fire the CEO should remain solely with the Board of Directors. Nevertheless, the Board could consider providing a separate guideline(outside of the bylaw) that enables members to express their dissatisfaction about a particular CEO's action. Regards On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > Should the CEO be exempt if he/she becomes sufficiently unpopular with the > membership that they are able to recall him through this process? > > No disrespect to the current CEO intended (and I can?t imagine such a > petition succeeding against him anyway), but I see no reason the position > should be exempt from such a challenge. > > Owen > > On Nov 5, 2016, at 02:23 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hello Alan, > > Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: > > 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be needed; > We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. > > 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change the > fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). Even > though I have no problem with your proposed changes. > > 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who is > subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, just want > to be sure that was your intent. > > Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used often/never(well I > hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO to be opened to such > removal process (even though i know it's implied). > > In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of > removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), it > may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 4 Nov 2016 23:57, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > >> Dear community, >> >> Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. >> >> In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not >> propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few >> additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am >> proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial >> statements. >> >> I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at >> the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and >> discussion. >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng * Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ismail at tispa.or.tz Sat Nov 5 10:22:03 2016 From: ismail at tispa.or.tz (Ismail Settenda) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2016 13:22:03 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: <1182577950.2075477.1478008463174@mail.yahoo.com> <753FE9AB-549A-4611-BB0C-E8B967DE93DE@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: +1 Noah. -- Ismail November 2016 at 22:19, Noah wrote: > On 1 Nov 2016 17:51, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > > > > if someone runs for election and loses, they should not be eligible to > run again for a defined period (2 years or whatever), since based on this > logic, they have been rejected? > > > > -1 Andrew. > > My reasoning is that, running and losing an election doesnt necessarily > translate into rejection. After all the loser tends to always also have a > constituency. > > Losing an election simply means the one who won got more votes from the > electorate and the one who lost or came 2nd got less votes. > > Folk who come 2nd or lose an election should never be stopped from running > again because no one in this community has a right to stop anyone from > contesting as many times as they can. > > > > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > Members-Discuss mailing list > Members-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alfred.agode at gmail.com Mon Nov 7 07:15:40 2016 From: alfred.agode at gmail.com (Alfred Kodjo D. AGODE) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 07:15:40 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello and congratulations to Fiona. I wish to you all the best for your new mission. Sent from my iPhone > Le 1 nov. 2016 ? 10:20, Mathew Chigwende a ?crit : > > Congratulations Fiona and good luck. > > Regards, > > Mathew Chigwende > > From: Sunday Folayan [mailto:sfolayan at gmail.com] > Sent: 01 November 2016 10:15 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; members-discuss at afrinic.net > Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC > > Dear Community, > > There are three representatives to the NRO NC/ASO AC from the AFRINIC Service region. Two are elected by the community with staggered three-year terms, while the third is appointed by the AFRINIC Board. > > I am pleased to inform you that the AFRINIC Board has appointed Ms. Fiona Asonga as its representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC, for a one year term from 1st January to 31st December 2017. She will be replacing Mr. Mark Elkins who was the Board?s appointee during 2015 and 2016, and continues to serve until 31 December 2016. Fiona was previously elected by the community, for a term ending on 31st December 2016, and will change from a community-elected seat to a Board-appointed seat on 1st January 2017. > > You will recall that the community elected Mr. Omo Oaiya at the AIS summit in Gaborone for a three year term that runs from 1st January 2017 to 31 December 2019. Mr. Douglas Onyango is the other representative elected by the community and his tenure will expire on 31 December 2017. > Congratulations to Fiona, and our thanks and appreciation to Mark Elkins for his service to the community as the Board appointee to the NRO NC/ASO AC. > > Sincerely, > > Sunday Folayan > Chair, AFRINIC Board > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > Managing Director > General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) > 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria > Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 > Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > --------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mje at posix.co.za Mon Nov 7 09:12:00 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:12:00 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <8902AD13-3AAA-425A-80BB-AE28C4903CAD@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <8902AD13-3AAA-425A-80BB-AE28C4903CAD@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <0931904b-5f9a-15c6-7693-4cac2ff24e9b@posix.co.za> On 05/11/2016 12:29, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On 5 Nov 2016, at 14:53, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> Hello Alan, >> >> Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: >> >> 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be needed; We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. > > I?ll see what comments I get, and either change it to a limit of 1 per country, or let the limit of 2 per sub-region be enough. > 2 per subregion. This should never include the Nationality or home of the CEO. As there can only be one Geo director per region - why not just say that the two Non-Geo Directors can not be from the same region? I also believe if a standing director moves to a different region then after 6 months must resign? >> 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change the fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). Even though I have no problem with your proposed changes. > > I suspect that we can?t legally prevent the registered members from changing the bylaws, but we can make it clear that that would be against the intent of the bylaws. > >> 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who is subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, just want to be sure that was your intent. > > We allow Directors standing for re-election to vote for themselves, so why not allow a Director to vote against his own removal? The requirement to recuse oneself for conflict of interest applies only to actions as a Director, not to actions as a Registered Member, even though the same person fills both roles. > >> Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used often/never(well I hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO to be opened to such removal process (even though i know it's implied). > > This should be ?an elected Director may be removed ??. I?ll fix it. > >> In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), it may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. > > I think it?s clear enough that the remaining Directors would have the right to fill the casual vacancies in terms of Bylaws article 13.14. > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From dewole at tinitop.com Mon Nov 7 14:29:12 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:29:12 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals Message-ID: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> Dear Community, I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size and country data already available in delegation stats at ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it should not require a new policy, right? Regards, Dewole Ajao. (in my capacity as a community member) From mje at posix.co.za Mon Nov 7 14:35:53 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:35:53 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> Message-ID: Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? I've seen that before somewhere.... AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving the address space or the actual ranges themselves though. On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: > Dear Community, > > I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see > weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and > approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email > from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. > > Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in > (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than > rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do > not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number > resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource > requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size > and country data already available in delegation stats at > ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ > > This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it > should not require a new policy, right? > > Regards, > > Dewole Ajao. > (in my capacity as a community member) > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From dewole at tinitop.com Mon Nov 7 14:53:37 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 15:53:37 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> Once a week is good. ARIN has a daily issued feed but that's a bit different from what I'm suggesting. I agree the actual allocated/assigned ranges need not be disclosed; I do however think that sharing the names of (applicant) organizations will help with responsibility and possibly reduce the occurrence of phony applications (if there have been any). Dewole. On 07/11/2016 15:35, Mark Elkins wrote: > Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be > sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? > I've seen that before somewhere.... > > AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving the > address space or the actual ranges themselves though. > > On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: >> Dear Community, >> >> I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see >> weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and >> approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email >> from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. >> >> Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in >> (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than >> rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do >> not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number >> resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource >> requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size >> and country data already available in delegation stats at >> ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ >> >> This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it >> should not require a new policy, right? >> >> Regards, >> >> Dewole Ajao. >> (in my capacity as a community member) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From mje at posix.co.za Mon Nov 7 15:09:33 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:09:33 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> Message-ID: On 07/11/2016 16:53, Dewole Ajao wrote: > Once a week is good. ARIN has a daily issued feed but that's a bit > different from what I'm suggesting. > > I agree the actual allocated/assigned ranges need not be disclosed; I do > however think that sharing the names of (applicant) organizations will > help with responsibility and possibly reduce the occurrence of phony > applications (if there have been any). Isn't that basically declaring you don't trust AFRINIC staff to do the right thing? What I tend to hear (happened twice today) is that the Hostmasters are so strict - its extremely difficult to get things done (according to the entities moaning at me). I therefore trust the Hostmasters - they are doing the right thing. > > Dewole. > > > On 07/11/2016 15:35, Mark Elkins wrote: >> Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be >> sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? >> I've seen that before somewhere.... >> >> AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving the >> address space or the actual ranges themselves though. >> >> On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: >>> Dear Community, >>> >>> I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see >>> weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and >>> approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email >>> from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. >>> >>> Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in >>> (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than >>> rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do >>> not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number >>> resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource >>> requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size >>> and country data already available in delegation stats at >>> ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ >>> >>> This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it >>> should not require a new policy, right? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dewole Ajao. >>> (in my capacity as a community member) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From dewole at tinitop.com Mon Nov 7 15:15:23 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:15:23 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <48be2b0b-1f44-e544-b128-51b1f7cb255c@tinitop.com> Responsibility of requesting entities is what I meant, Mark. Please do not attempt to declare anything on my behalf. If an applicant knows the community sees in realtime, he/she is less likely to put in phony stuff that just wastes the hostmasters' time and increases the time taken to process legit requests. Dewole. On 07/11/2016 16:09, Mark Elkins wrote: > > On 07/11/2016 16:53, Dewole Ajao wrote: >> Once a week is good. ARIN has a daily issued feed but that's a bit >> different from what I'm suggesting. >> >> I agree the actual allocated/assigned ranges need not be disclosed; I do >> however think that sharing the names of (applicant) organizations will >> help with responsibility and possibly reduce the occurrence of phony >> applications (if there have been any). > > Isn't that basically declaring you don't trust AFRINIC staff to do the > right thing? > > > What I tend to hear (happened twice today) is that the Hostmasters are > so strict - its extremely difficult to get things done (according to the > entities moaning at me). > > I therefore trust the Hostmasters - they are doing the right thing. > > >> Dewole. >> >> >> On 07/11/2016 15:35, Mark Elkins wrote: >>> Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be >>> sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? >>> I've seen that before somewhere.... >>> >>> AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving the >>> address space or the actual ranges themselves though. >>> >>> On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: >>>> Dear Community, >>>> >>>> I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see >>>> weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and >>>> approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email >>>> from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. >>>> >>>> Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in >>>> (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than >>>> rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do >>>> not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number >>>> resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource >>>> requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size >>>> and country data already available in delegation stats at >>>> ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ >>>> >>>> This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it >>>> should not require a new policy, right? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Dewole Ajao. >>>> (in my capacity as a community member) >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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: From mje at posix.co.za Mon Nov 7 15:52:22 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:52:22 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: <48be2b0b-1f44-e544-b128-51b1f7cb255c@tinitop.com> References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> <48be2b0b-1f44-e544-b128-51b1f7cb255c@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <072f748c-5b31-8317-2e14-8f4fd7567276@posix.co.za> On 07/11/2016 17:15, Dewole Ajao wrote: > Responsibility of requesting entities is what I meant, Mark. Please do > not attempt to declare anything on my behalf. I'm afraid that was the first thought that came to mind. I'm probably not alone. My thought is also not about you, but the idea. > If an applicant knows the community sees in realtime, he/she is less > likely to put in phony stuff that just wastes the hostmasters' time and > increases the time taken to process legit requests. I understand your intention and I agree with you (Visibility should reduce phony requests) but then I think you'd need to see the application visible up front as soon as it goes to the Hostmaster. Perhaps then all new requests need to be put on an open website for everybody to see - along with their current progress state. I don't think many applicants would like this (see - these are our plans to provide Internet) but their competition would probably love it (Ha, so we do this and they fail). When we are in the Soft-Landing part of IPv4 or better still, the last 25% of soft-landing - then maybe this could be an appropriate idea. The community can view and therefore report on any suspicious applications. This would probably make the whole assignment process take longer - which should be less of an issue then. > > Dewole. > > > On 07/11/2016 16:09, Mark Elkins wrote: >> >> On 07/11/2016 16:53, Dewole Ajao wrote: >>> Once a week is good. ARIN has a daily issued feed but that's a bit >>> different from what I'm suggesting. >>> >>> I agree the actual allocated/assigned ranges need not be disclosed; I do >>> however think that sharing the names of (applicant) organizations will >>> help with responsibility and possibly reduce the occurrence of phony >>> applications (if there have been any). >> >> Isn't that basically declaring you don't trust AFRINIC staff to do the >> right thing? >> >> >> What I tend to hear (happened twice today) is that the Hostmasters are >> so strict - its extremely difficult to get things done (according to the >> entities moaning at me). >> >> I therefore trust the Hostmasters - they are doing the right thing. >> >> >>> Dewole. >>> >>> >>> On 07/11/2016 15:35, Mark Elkins wrote: >>>> Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be >>>> sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? >>>> I've seen that before somewhere.... >>>> >>>> AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving the >>>> address space or the actual ranges themselves though. >>>> >>>> On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: >>>>> Dear Community, >>>>> >>>>> I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see >>>>> weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and >>>>> approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email >>>>> from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. >>>>> >>>>> Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in >>>>> (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than >>>>> rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do >>>>> not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number >>>>> resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource >>>>> requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size >>>>> and country data already available in delegation stats at >>>>> ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ >>>>> >>>>> This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it >>>>> should not require a new policy, right? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Dewole Ajao. >>>>> (in my capacity as a community member) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Mon Nov 7 16:14:01 2016 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:14:01 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: <072f748c-5b31-8317-2e14-8f4fd7567276@posix.co.za> References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> <48be2b0b-1f44-e544-b128-51b1f7cb255c@tinitop.com> <072f748c-5b31-8317-2e14-8f4fd7567276@posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Mark Elkins wrote: > > When we are in the Soft-Landing part of IPv4 or better still, the last > 25% of soft-landing - then maybe this could be an appropriate idea. The > community can view and therefore report on any suspicious applications. > This would probably make the whole assignment process take longer - > which should be less of an issue then. > I wouldn't wait until then to monitor and act on suspicious applications. This brings up again the need for seriously considering the proposed audit policy. If something has escaped us, we can recall resources that were acquired through fraudulent applications. Boubakar > > > > > > Dewole. > > > > > > On 07/11/2016 16:09, Mark Elkins wrote: > >> > >> On 07/11/2016 16:53, Dewole Ajao wrote: > >>> Once a week is good. ARIN has a daily issued feed but that's a bit > >>> different from what I'm suggesting. > >>> > >>> I agree the actual allocated/assigned ranges need not be disclosed; I > do > >>> however think that sharing the names of (applicant) organizations will > >>> help with responsibility and possibly reduce the occurrence of phony > >>> applications (if there have been any). > >> > >> Isn't that basically declaring you don't trust AFRINIC staff to do the > >> right thing? > >> > >> > >> What I tend to hear (happened twice today) is that the Hostmasters are > >> so strict - its extremely difficult to get things done (according to the > >> entities moaning at me). > >> > >> I therefore trust the Hostmasters - they are doing the right thing. > >> > >> > >>> Dewole. > >>> > >>> > >>> On 07/11/2016 15:35, Mark Elkins wrote: > >>>> Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be > >>>> sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? > >>>> I've seen that before somewhere.... > >>>> > >>>> AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving > the > >>>> address space or the actual ranges themselves though. > >>>> > >>>> On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: > >>>>> Dear Community, > >>>>> > >>>>> I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see > >>>>> weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications > and > >>>>> approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily > email > >>>>> from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. > >>>>> > >>>>> Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in > >>>>> (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather > than > >>>>> rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do > >>>>> not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number > >>>>> resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource > >>>>> requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource > type/size > >>>>> and country data already available in delegation stats at > >>>>> ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ > >>>>> > >>>>> This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it > >>>>> should not require a new policy, right? > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> Dewole Ajao. > >>>>> (in my capacity as a community member) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> 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 > > > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa > mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 > For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Nov 7 17:08:26 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 17:08:26 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: <48be2b0b-1f44-e544-b128-51b1f7cb255c@tinitop.com> References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> <48be2b0b-1f44-e544-b128-51b1f7cb255c@tinitop.com> Message-ID: Dewole, That information is already available based on space allocated. It would be a violation of the MSA and privacy clauses to disclose any application before it is granted. The whois database contains the rest of the information as does the delegation database, just a matter of correlating them. I for one would not support AfriNIC directly exposing the names of clients being allocated space, as I believe that it violates aspects of the MSA and violates the principles of trust. Andrew From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at tinitop.com] Sent: 07 November 2016 18:15 To: mje at posix.co.za; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals Responsibility of requesting entities is what I meant, Mark. Please do not attempt to declare anything on my behalf. If an applicant knows the community sees in realtime, he/she is less likely to put in phony stuff that just wastes the hostmasters' time and increases the time taken to process legit requests. Dewole. On 07/11/2016 16:09, Mark Elkins wrote: On 07/11/2016 16:53, Dewole Ajao wrote: Once a week is good. ARIN has a daily issued feed but that's a bit different from what I'm suggesting. I agree the actual allocated/assigned ranges need not be disclosed; I do however think that sharing the names of (applicant) organizations will help with responsibility and possibly reduce the occurrence of phony applications (if there have been any). Isn't that basically declaring you don't trust AFRINIC staff to do the right thing? What I tend to hear (happened twice today) is that the Hostmasters are so strict - its extremely difficult to get things done (according to the entities moaning at me). I therefore trust the Hostmasters - they are doing the right thing. Dewole. On 07/11/2016 15:35, Mark Elkins wrote: Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? I've seen that before somewhere.... AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving the address space or the actual ranges themselves though. On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: Dear Community, I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size and country data already available in delegation stats at ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it should not require a new policy, right? Regards, Dewole Ajao. (in my capacity as a community member) _______________________________________________ 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 7 17:54:56 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 09:54:56 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4900190A-6FAF-485B-BD83-8AAFDE5E8852@delong.com> Message-ID: <5FB92B72-815D-4ED4-A6E3-B84C2B22F997@delong.com> For hiring, I completely agree with you. For firing, I think that the bar here is sufficiently high that it is not unreasonable to allow it to apply to the CEO as well. Really, if there is such overwhelming desire by the community to remove the CEO that it reaches this threshold, do you believe it is good governance for the board to keep such person in place? Owen > On Nov 6, 2016, at 19:43 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > In the interest of good governance and proper respect of process and structure, I believe that the ability to hire and fire the CEO should remain solely with the Board of Directors. Nevertheless, the Board could consider providing a separate guideline(outside of the bylaw) that enables members to express their dissatisfaction about a particular CEO's action. > > Regards > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > Should the CEO be exempt if he/she becomes sufficiently unpopular with the membership that they are able to recall him through this process? > > No disrespect to the current CEO intended (and I can?t imagine such a petition succeeding against him anyway), but I see no reason the position should be exempt from such a challenge. > > Owen > >> On Nov 5, 2016, at 02:23 , Seun Ojedeji > wrote: >> >> Hello Alan, >> >> Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: >> >> 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be needed; We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. >> >> 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change the fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). Even though I have no problem with your proposed changes. >> >> 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who is subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, just want to be sure that was your intent. >> >> Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used often/never(well I hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO to be opened to such removal process (even though i know it's implied). >> >> In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), it may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. >> >> Regards >> Sent from my LG G4 >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >> >> >> On 4 Nov 2016 23:57, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: >> Dear community, >> >> Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. >> >> In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial statements. >> >> I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and discussion. >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Seun Ojedeji, > Federal University Oye-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 <> > alt email:? seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng > > Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Nov 7 18:14:57 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 23:44:57 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <5FB92B72-815D-4ED4-A6E3-B84C2B22F997@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4900190A-6FAF-485B-BD83-8AAFDE5E8852@delong.com> <5FB92B72-815D-4ED4-A6E3-B84C2B22F997@delong.com> Message-ID: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Nov 2016 11:26 p.m., "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > Really, if there is such overwhelming desire by the community to remove the CEO that it reaches this threshold, do you believe it is good governance for the board to keep such person in place? > SO: Actually if there is such overwhelming desire to fire the CEO from the community, then it would indeed imply bad governance and the community should fire the Board for not performing her fiduciary duties by doing the needful (when required). The one that hires fires and the one that elected should be empowered to remove. Community elected the Board, Board hires the CEO. I still believe it will be very wrong to expose Staff(CEO or other staff) to such removal option by the community while there is still an organisation Board existing. Regards > Owen > >> On Nov 6, 2016, at 19:43 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: >> >> Hi Owen, >> >> In the interest of good governance and proper respect of process and structure, I believe that the ability to hire and fire the CEO should remain solely with the Board of Directors. Nevertheless, the Board could consider providing a separate guideline(outside of the bylaw) that enables members to express their dissatisfaction about a particular CEO's action. >> >> Regards >> >> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> Should the CEO be exempt if he/she becomes sufficiently unpopular with the membership that they are able to recall him through this process? >>> >>> No disrespect to the current CEO intended (and I can?t imagine such a petition succeeding against him anyway), but I see no reason the position should be exempt from such a challenge. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 02:23 , Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Alan, >>>> >>>> Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: >>>> >>>> 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be needed; We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. >>>> >>>> 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change the fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). Even though I have no problem with your proposed changes. >>>> >>>> 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who is subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, just want to be sure that was your intent. >>>> >>>> Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used often/never(well I hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO to be opened to such removal process (even though i know it's implied). >>>> >>>> In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), it may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>> >>>> >>>> On 4 Nov 2016 23:57, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear community, >>>>> >>>>> Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. >>>>> >>>>> In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did not propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual financial statements. >>>>> >>>>> I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special resolutions at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from further review and discussion. >>>>> >>>>> Alan Barrett >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Seun Ojedeji, >>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti >>> web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >>> Mobile: +2348035233535 >>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng >>> >>>> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Mon Nov 7 18:36:35 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 20:36:35 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4900190A-6FAF-485B-BD83-8AAFDE5E8852@delong.com> <5FB92B72-815D-4ED4-A6E3-B84C2B22F997@delong.com> Message-ID: <8a247403-e4c3-c7fb-0587-38ae33cad619@posix.co.za> On 07/11/2016 20:14, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 7 Nov 2016 11:26 p.m., "Owen DeLong" > wrote: >> >> Really, if there is such overwhelming desire by the community to > remove the CEO that it reaches this threshold, do you believe it is good > governance for the board to keep such person in place? >> > > SO: Actually if there is such overwhelming desire to fire the CEO from > the community, then it would indeed imply bad governance and the > community should fire the Board for not performing her fiduciary duties > by doing the needful (when required). > > The one that hires fires and the one that elected should be empowered to > remove. Community elected the Board, Board hires the CEO. I still > believe it will be very wrong to expose Staff(CEO or other staff) to > such removal option by the community while there is still an > organisation Board existing. MJE: Totally agree with you Seun. Community deals with the Board. The Board deals with the CEO - etc. > Regards > >> Owen >> >>> On Nov 6, 2016, at 19:43 , Seun Ojedeji > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Owen, >>> >>> In the interest of good governance and proper respect of process and > structure, I believe that the ability to hire and fire the CEO should > remain solely with the Board of Directors. Nevertheless, the Board could > consider providing a separate guideline(outside of the bylaw) that > enables members to express their dissatisfaction about a particular > CEO's action. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: >>>> >>>> Should the CEO be exempt if he/she becomes sufficiently unpopular > with the membership that they are able to recall him through this process? >>>> >>>> No disrespect to the current CEO intended (and I can?t imagine such > a petition succeeding against him anyway), but I see no reason the > position should be exempt from such a challenge. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 02:23 , Seun Ojedeji > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello Alan, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for sending this across, a few "personal" comments below: >>>>> >>>>> 1. For item 7: I think 13.8b is sufficient hence 13.8c may not be > needed; We don't have to formerly restrict things to that extent. >>>>> >>>>> 2. For item 12: I am not sure the proposed resolution would change > the fact that registered members can change the bylaw(as per the act). > Even though I have no problem with your proposed changes. >>>>> >>>>> 3. For item 16: This seem to imply that the registered member who > is subject to removal still has a vote. I have no problem with that, > just want to be sure that was your intent. >>>>> >>>>> Secondly while I do not expect this clause to be used > often/never(well I hope). It will be good to explicitly exclude the CEO > to be opened to such removal process (even though i know it's implied). >>>>> >>>>> In an almost impossible situation where there are quite a number of > removal that could affect the work of the Board (like forming a quorum), > it may be good to clarify what would happen to the seats. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Sent from my LG G4 >>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 4 Nov 2016 23:57, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear community, >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is the next round of suggestions for Bylaws changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> In cases where the previous proposal identified an issue but did > not propose text, I am now proposing text. I am also proposing a few > additional changes to address issues raised by others. Finally, I am > proposing a change to address a problem with approving the annual > financial statements. >>>>>> >>>>>> I intend to propose all these bylaws changes as special > resolutions at the AFRINIC-25 SGMM, possibly with edits resulting from > further review and discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alan Barrett -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Tue Nov 8 05:19:54 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:19:54 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <0931904b-5f9a-15c6-7693-4cac2ff24e9b@posix.co.za> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <8902AD13-3AAA-425A-80BB-AE28C4903CAD@afrinic.net> <0931904b-5f9a-15c6-7693-4cac2ff24e9b@posix.co.za> Message-ID: On 11/7/16, 12:12 PM, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > >I also believe if a standing director moves to a different region then >after 6 months must resign? > I think this is something to consider makes sense since it distorts the regional representation aspect Regards > From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Tue Nov 8 05:27:14 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:27:14 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4900190A-6FAF-485B-BD83-8AAFDE5E8852@delong.com> <5FB92B72-815D-4ED4-A6E3-B84C2B22F997@delong.com> Message-ID: <9488CB40-7DD7-46FC-9550-850B9A8BBC31@nftconsult.com> On 11/7/16, 9:14 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" wrote: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 7 Nov 2016 11:26 p.m., "Owen DeLong" wrote: > > Really, if there is such overwhelming desire by the community to remove the CEO that it reaches this threshold, do you believe it is good governance for the board to keep such person in place? > SO: Actually if there is such overwhelming desire to fire the CEO from the community, then it would indeed imply bad governance and the community should fire the Board for not performing her fiduciary duties by doing the needful (when required). This cannot happen since there is this small elephant in the room called the companies act which from past conversations removes that power from the community at large. The one that hires fires and the one that elected should be empowered to remove. Community elected the Board, Board hires the CEO. I still believe it will be very wrong to expose Staff(CEO or other staff) to such removal option by the community while there is still an organisation Board existing. Basically community should have power to recall board if board fails to get results from CEO and fails to make a change of CEO if necessary. Community should have no operational access to staff apart from when staff are delivering service. Community can offer feedback to the organization about their experience with staff but cannot dictate what action should be taken. Regards -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mangawilly at gmail.com Tue Nov 8 09:24:45 2016 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:24:45 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IAB statement on IPv6 Message-ID: A little excerpt .. ?[...] The IAB expects that the IETF will stop requiring IPv4 compatibility in new or extended protocols. Future IETF protocol work will then optimize for and depend on IPv6. [...] We recommend that all networking standards assume the use of IPv6, and be written so they do not require IPv4 [...] ? May this statement inspires us for our future policies ... 1. https://www.iab.org/2016/11/07/iab-statement-on-ipv6/ -- Willy Manga freenode: ongolaBoy Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 9 09:56:10 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:26:10 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <0AEF0616-9B25-414F-A605-7DBCE7BA850D@afrinic.net> > On 5 Nov 2016, at 16:06, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 5 Nov 2016, at 00:46, Andrew Alston wrote: >> I believe that section 16 is also in conflict with the companies act. The companies act specifically states that a director may only be removed in a meeting dedicated to that purpose with that being the only item on the agenda. So while I have no problem with the community being able to recall a director, it must be through a dedicated meeting and not through the addition of an agenda item at a regular meeting. > > I?ll check on that, and make a suitable chaneg if necessary. By my reading, the Companies Act article 138 gives some methods that a Director may be removed, but does not prevent the Bylaws/Constitution from providing other methods. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 9 09:58:06 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:28:06 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On 5 Nov 2016, at 18:54, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > I?m kinda on the fence about the changes referred to below. > > Historically, we have said that regional representation means that at the time of election, the individual must be domiciled in the region for each he is standing. Looking at the bylaws, this seems to be a requirement that was introduced through the election guidelines rather than the bylaws (which I have no problem with, but it does need to be made clear) > > If we change it to reside in, this cleans this up and it means that should a director relocate outside of the region, he would have to resign and his seat would become vacant (other than in the case of independent directors) ? I think that would probably be a good thing, but it does further entrench the concept of regional representation which is the exact thing that we are attempting to change with the other change that says irrespective of the region the director serves the entire continent. Yes, by the letter of the wording there is no conflict here, but it would seem the spirit of the words conflicts. > > At the same time, if we leave it unchanged, it could easily be argued that regional representation is not defined by where an individual is domiciled, but by where his nominators are domiciled. By the letter of the bylaws, there would be nothing stopping individuals in a particular region nominating an individual to represent their region even if that individual was resident on the other side of the planet. I almost lean more towards this, since in a true bottom up approach, I feel the electorate should have the right to have whoever they want represent them, provided the individual passes the test of being able to legally serve in that capacity. I haven?t seen substantial discussion of this, so I will not propose changes around whether a Director must reside in the relevant sub-region, or be nominated from the relevant sub-region, for seats 1 to 6. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 9 10:04:14 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:34:14 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> Message-ID: <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> > On 7 Nov 2016, at 05:51, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and this provision. >> >> When there?s an election, it?s usually clear whether or not winning the election would violate one of the per-company, per-subregion, or per-country quota limits, but multiple simultaneous elections could cause confusion. Do we need to legislate an order of priority, such as elections for regional seats 1 to 6 take priority over elections for non-regional seats 7 and 8 when deciding which winner should be disqualified on grounds of violating one of the quota limits? >> >> When an elected Director changes their employment or place of residence, such that these limits are violated, then somebody has to resign, but is it the one who is moving, or the one who was already there? I don?t see a need to legislate this. > > If you do not legislate it, then what do you do when it comes up? In my experience, AfriNIC has a history of wasting substantial time and energy on dealing with situations not properly accounted for in its election procedures and/or open questions such as this when triggered. > > As such, I?d much rather see a policy considered by the community and adopted than a ?we?ll make it up as we go along if it becomes necessary? approach. I will propose text to deal with this. >>> Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of ?endorsement? is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most importantly, withheld. >> >> The vagueness was already present. > > This isn?t a surprise. However, I think taking this opportunity to remove that vagueness is worth consideration at least. > >> I think that community endorsement of policy created by the Board should require majority consent. Perhaps reversing a Board decision on resource policy should require a vote by the Members? > > So if I understand what you are proposing here, it would go to the PDWG meeting, where the community would vote on it. Majority of those who happen to be in the room would uphold the board?s decision. Absent that, it would then subsequently go to a vote of the membership requiring a majority of the membership to vote against it in order to reverse the board?s decision. To me, this presents multiple possible outcomes: > > 1. Community endorses ? Everything is fine, board decision stands. > 2. Community rejects, membership does not reject ? Unclear what happens, I presume board decision stands? > 3. Community rejects, membership rejects ? Board decision is? { Remanded to board for revision, Overturned, Rescinded pending corrective action by the board }? > > Also, over what period is the membership election held if necessary? How is voting handled in such case (mechanics)? > > Not trying to be argumentative here, just thinking through the potential outcomes and thinking somewhat aloud in hopes of getting input from other stakeholders. > > I would propose that for any such action, judging strictly by vote of those present in the PDWG meeting or members present at the General meeting isn?t entirely good. I?d prefer to see the issue include input from the PDWG mailing list, and, if applicable, the members-discuss and/or afrinic-discuss mailing lists as well. > > I?d like to see policies brought forth this way subjected to the same standard for consensus as policies developed through the normal process, the only difference being that these policies have a presumption of consensus by board fiat until that presumption is falsified by the PDWG upon verification of that falsification by the PDWG co-chairs. I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority. >>> Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60 day comment period thereafter. >> >> I think you misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is that (1) the Board discusses proposed fee changes with the community, for an unspecified time period; (2) the Board finalises the fee changes; (3) there is at least 60 days notice before the fee changes go into effect. > > You are correct, I did misunderstand, as that?s not what I remember reading in the proposal. > > I?m fine with what you state above so long as there is a specification that step 1 be for a minimum of 60 days and include discussion at one or more PPMs. I will propose 60 days discussion before the Board makes a decision on fees, and 60 days notice before such decision takes effect. Alan Barrett From aalain at trstech.net Wed Nov 9 10:46:52 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:46:52 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello, inline... > On Nov 9, 2016, at 2:04 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 05:51, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and this provision. >>> >>> When there?s an election, it?s usually clear whether or not winning the election would violate one of the per-company, per-subregion, or per-country quota limits, but multiple simultaneous elections could cause confusion. Do we need to legislate an order of priority, such as elections for regional seats 1 to 6 take priority over elections for non-regional seats 7 and 8 when deciding which winner should be disqualified on grounds of violating one of the quota limits? >>> >>> When an elected Director changes their employment or place of residence, such that these limits are violated, then somebody has to resign, but is it the one who is moving, or the one who was already there? I don?t see a need to legislate this. >> >> If you do not legislate it, then what do you do when it comes up? In my experience, AfriNIC has a history of wasting substantial time and energy on dealing with situations not properly accounted for in its election procedures and/or open questions such as this when triggered. >> >> As such, I?d much rather see a policy considered by the community and adopted than a ?we?ll make it up as we go along if it becomes necessary? approach. > > I will propose text to deal with this. > >>>> Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of ?endorsement? is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most importantly, withheld. >>> >>> The vagueness was already present. >> >> This isn?t a surprise. However, I think taking this opportunity to remove that vagueness is worth consideration at least. >> >>> I think that community endorsement of policy created by the Board should require majority consent. Perhaps reversing a Board decision on resource policy should require a vote by the Members? >> >> So if I understand what you are proposing here, it would go to the PDWG meeting, where the community would vote on it. Majority of those who happen to be in the room would uphold the board?s decision. Absent that, it would then subsequently go to a vote of the membership requiring a majority of the membership to vote against it in order to reverse the board?s decision. To me, this presents multiple possible outcomes: >> >> 1. Community endorses ? Everything is fine, board decision stands. >> 2. Community rejects, membership does not reject ? Unclear what happens, I presume board decision stands? >> 3. Community rejects, membership rejects ? Board decision is? { Remanded to board for revision, Overturned, Rescinded pending corrective action by the board }? >> >> Also, over what period is the membership election held if necessary? How is voting handled in such case (mechanics)? >> >> Not trying to be argumentative here, just thinking through the potential outcomes and thinking somewhat aloud in hopes of getting input from other stakeholders. >> >> I would propose that for any such action, judging strictly by vote of those present in the PDWG meeting or members present at the General meeting isn?t entirely good. I?d prefer to see the issue include input from the PDWG mailing list, and, if applicable, the members-discuss and/or afrinic-discuss mailing lists as well. >> >> I?d like to see policies brought forth this way subjected to the same standard for consensus as policies developed through the normal process, the only difference being that these policies have a presumption of consensus by board fiat until that presumption is falsified by the PDWG upon verification of that falsification by the PDWG co-chairs. > > I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority. Hmmm. Are we moving the PDPWG powers in board hands? I do not understand the concept of deadlock in our bottom-up PDP ruled by "Rough Consensus? and not ?Full Consensus". I would expect to see all times, effort made by all parties(including board) to reach rough consensus on adoption/rejection? and not board making decisions. Is this not a discussion for the PDPWG ? Thanks ?Alain > >>>> Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60 day comment period thereafter. >>> >>> I think you misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is that (1) the Board discusses proposed fee changes with the community, for an unspecified time period; (2) the Board finalises the fee changes; (3) there is at least 60 days notice before the fee changes go into effect. >> >> You are correct, I did misunderstand, as that?s not what I remember reading in the proposal. >> >> I?m fine with what you state above so long as there is a specification that step 1 be for a minimum of 60 days and include discussion at one or more PPMs. > > I will propose 60 days discussion before the Board makes a decision on fees, and 60 days notice before such decision takes effect. > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From aalain at trstech.net Wed Nov 9 10:54:46 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 14:54:46 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <0AEF0616-9B25-414F-A605-7DBCE7BA850D@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <0AEF0616-9B25-414F-A605-7DBCE7BA850D@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3A9F90C7-E53E-44AA-8DB3-BE894F040FFE@trstech.net> > On Nov 9, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 5 Nov 2016, at 16:06, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> On 5 Nov 2016, at 00:46, Andrew Alston wrote: >>> I believe that section 16 is also in conflict with the companies act. The companies act specifically states that a director may only be removed in a meeting dedicated to that purpose with that being the only item on the agenda. So while I have no problem with the community being able to recall a director, it must be through a dedicated meeting and not through the addition of an agenda item at a regular meeting. >> >> I?ll check on that, and make a suitable chaneg if necessary. > > By my reading, the Companies Act article 138 gives some methods that a Director may be removed, but does not prevent the Bylaws/Constitution from providing other methods. Only methods which are in accordance with the Act if we still think we are only governed by the Act. ?Alain > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 9 11:01:50 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:31:50 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> > On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:16, ALAIN AINA wrote: > Hmmm. Are we moving the PDPWG powers in board hands? I do not understand the concept of deadlock in our bottom-up PDP ruled by "Rough Consensus? and not ?Full Consensus". I would expect to see all times, effort made by all parties(including board) to reach rough consensus on adoption/rejection? and not board making decisions. Is this not a discussion for the PDPWG ? The Bylaws have always given the Board the power to make policy without going throgh the PDWG process. The Board has never exercised that power in the past, but the ability is there in the Bylaws in case a good reason appears in the future. We are talking about reducing that power so that the Board cannot abuse it. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 9 11:05:44 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:35:44 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <3A9F90C7-E53E-44AA-8DB3-BE894F040FFE@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <0AEF0616-9B25-414F-A605-7DBCE7BA850D@afrinic.net> <3A9F90C7-E53E-44AA-8DB3-BE894F040FFE@trstech.net> Message-ID: <19563AF8-B778-4592-90BC-7A2D3EC0E176@afrinic.net> > On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:24, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> >> By my reading, the Companies Act article 138 gives some methods that a Director may be removed, but does not prevent the Bylaws/Constitution from providing other methods. > > Only methods which are in accordance with the Act if we still think we are only governed by the Act. We are not ?only? governed by the Act. We are governed by both the Act and our Bylaws. Alan Barrett From aalain at trstech.net Wed Nov 9 11:14:19 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:14:19 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> > On Nov 9, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:16, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> Hmmm. Are we moving the PDPWG powers in board hands? I do not understand the concept of deadlock in our bottom-up PDP ruled by "Rough Consensus? and not ?Full Consensus". I would expect to see all times, effort made by all parties(including board) to reach rough consensus on adoption/rejection? and not board making decisions. Is this not a discussion for the PDPWG ? > > The Bylaws have always given the Board the power to make policy without going throgh the PDWG process. The Board has never exercised that power in the past, but the ability is there in the Bylaws in case a good reason appears in the future. We are talking about reducing that power so that the Board cannot abuse it. Good Alan, but the way it was presented does not sound same as your last text. But It was also proposed to just remove board adopting policy from bylaws and only depend on the PDP. May be an updated version of the PDP ? Thanks ?Alain > > Alan Barrett > From mje at posix.co.za Wed Nov 9 11:36:29 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:36:29 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> Message-ID: <11d6c94a-bfcf-7ff9-8ce2-fdc3289a4594@posix.co.za> On 09/11/2016 13:14, ALAIN AINA wrote: > >> On Nov 9, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Alan Barrett >> wrote: >> >> >>> On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:16, ALAIN AINA wrote: >>> Hmmm. Are we moving the PDPWG powers in board hands? I do not >>> understand the concept of deadlock in our bottom-up PDP ruled by >>> "Rough Consensus? and not ?Full Consensus". I would expect to >>> see all times, effort made by all parties(including board) to >>> reach rough consensus on adoption/rejection? and not board >>> making decisions. Is this not a discussion for the PDPWG ? >> >> The Bylaws have always given the Board the power to make policy >> without going throgh the PDWG process. The Board has never >> exercised that power in the past, but the ability is there in the >> Bylaws in case a good reason appears in the future. We are talking >> about reducing that power so that the Board cannot abuse it. > > Good Alan, but the way it was presented does not sound same as your > last text. But It was also proposed to just remove board adopting > policy from bylaws and only depend on the PDP. May be an updated > version of the PDP ? And if the Board has never abused this PDP power (never even used it at all) since inception yet has always had the power to do this - why then is it really a problem? The membership could still look for blood in other ways if necessary. If we do have such a Bylaw (to stop potential abuse) - this would have to be done by a membership vote - not a PDP meeting "consensus". This might be up to 5 months away - time for lots of damage - etc. On the other hand - if the Board decided that they needed to have an expedited policy introduced - and they asked the Membership to vote (electronically) on it - AFRINIC staff could probably pull that exercise off within a working week - which should be fast enough. The Board is not stupid, neither is the membership. Just thoughts. -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 9 11:40:27 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:10:27 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> Message-ID: <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> > On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:44, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> The Bylaws have always given the Board the power to make policy without going throgh the PDWG process. The Board has never exercised that power in the past, but the ability is there in the Bylaws in case a good reason appears in the future. We are talking about reducing that power so that the Board cannot abuse it. > > Good Alan, but the way it was presented does not sound same as your last text. > But It was also proposed to just remove board adopting policy from bylaws and only depend on the PDP. May be an updated version of the PDP ? Yes, there was a suggestion to remove the Baord?s ability to make policy. I don?t agree with that. I still think that it?s useful for the Baord to be able to make policy, but this ability should be constrained. For example, imagine two competing policy proposal that agree on almost everything except one detail. Say there is no agreement on whether an important number in the policy should be 70% or 80%, and both sides have enough support to prevent the other side from getting rough consensus. This is the kind of deadlock I referred to in an earlier message. In such a case, if the Board considers it ?necessary and urgent?, it could make a decision in terms of the Bylaws section 11.4, and then bring it to the community for endorsement in terms of 11.5. The problem that I am trying to fix is that the Bylaws article 11.5 doesn?t say what happens if the policy is not endorsed, and doesn?t say how you measure whether or not a policy is endorsed. Alan Barrett From aalain at trstech.net Wed Nov 9 13:06:32 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 17:06:32 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3BC106DF-C06A-4922-9483-AF675F2B485C@trstech.net> Hello, See inline. (cc?ed rpd as this is PDP related) > On Nov 9, 2016, at 3:40 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:44, ALAIN AINA wrote: >>> The Bylaws have always given the Board the power to make policy without going throgh the PDWG process. The Board has never exercised that power in the past, but the ability is there in the Bylaws in case a good reason appears in the future. We are talking about reducing that power so that the Board cannot abuse it. >> >> Good Alan, but the way it was presented does not sound same as your last text. >> But It was also proposed to just remove board adopting policy from bylaws and only depend on the PDP. May be an updated version of the PDP ? > > Yes, there was a suggestion to remove the Baord?s ability to make policy. I don?t agree with that. I still think that it?s useful for the Baord to be able to make policy, but this ability should be constrained. > > For example, imagine two competing policy proposal that agree on almost everything except one detail. Say there is no agreement on whether an important number in the policy should be 70% or 80%, and both sides have enough support to prevent the other side from getting rough consensus. This is the kind of deadlock I referred to in an earlier message. In such a case, if the Board considers it ?necessary and urgent?, it could make a decision in terms of the Bylaws section 11.4, and then bring it to the community for endorsement in terms of 11.5. What i am sensing here is Board being involved in the ?rough consensus? process of the PDPWG which is different from board adopting its own policies which shall be submitted to the community for endorsement. Ok. In case of deadlock as described above and if the board made the decision over policy proposals being discussed, why bring the adopted policy back to the same community for endorsement ? > > The problem that I am trying to fix is that the Bylaws article 11.5 doesn?t say what happens if the policy is not endorsed, and doesn?t say how you measure whether or not a policy is endorsed. As it is now, Board adopted policies in accordance to 11.4 are supposed to be endorsed through PDP and its Rough Consensus process. So issue is, fix case where board adopted policies get stuck in ?rough consensus? process ? , fix the ?rough consensus ? process? Hope this helps ?Alain > > > Alan Barrett > From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 9 13:32:53 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 19:02:53 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <3BC106DF-C06A-4922-9483-AF675F2B485C@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> <3BC106DF-C06A-4922-9483-AF675F2B485C@trstech.net> Message-ID: <555B28C8-1633-492E-8887-8FB85F31A232@afrinic.net> > On 9 Nov 2016, at 18:36, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > What i am sensing here is Board being involved in the ?rough consensus? process of the PDPWG which is different from board adopting its own policies which shall be submitted to the community for endorsement. > > Ok. In case of deadlock as described above and if the board made the decision over policy proposals being discussed, why bring the adopted policy back to the same community for endorsement ? There are two ways to make policy: The normal way: Policy is made by the community and ratified by the Board. See Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3, and the PDP. The unusual way: Policy is made by the Board and endorsed by the community. See Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5. The changes under discussion do not affect the normal process (PDP, and Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3). The changes under discussion are intended to prevent the Board from abusing the unusual process (Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5). My example (not quoted) was intended to illustrate why it is sometimes a good idea to let the Baord adopt policies that do not reach rough consensus. Alan Barrett From amelnaud at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 15:48:58 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 15:48:58 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <555B28C8-1633-492E-8887-8FB85F31A232@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> <3BC106DF-C06A-4922-9483-AF675F2B485C@trstech.net> <555B28C8-1633-492E-8887-8FB85F31A232@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Le 9 nov. 2016 13:33, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > > On 9 Nov 2016, at 18:36, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > > > What i am sensing here is Board being involved in the ?rough consensus? process of the PDPWG which is different from board adopting its own policies which shall be submitted to the community for endorsement. > > > > Ok. In case of deadlock as described above and if the board made the decision over policy proposals being discussed, why bring the adopted policy back to the same community for endorsement ? > > There are two ways to make policy: > > The normal way: Policy is made by the community and ratified by the Board. See Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3, and the PDP. > > The unusual way: Policy is made by the Board and endorsed by the community. See Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5. > > The changes under discussion do not affect the normal process (PDP, and Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3). The changes under discussion are intended to prevent the Board from abusing the unusual process (Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5). > > My example (not quoted) was intended to illustrate why it is sometimes a good idea to let the Baord adopt policies that do not reach rough consensus. > It seems to me that the problem that Alain is raising, is board involvement in adoption of Policy proposals which do not reach rough consensus for adoption at the PDPWG level . Regards Arnaud > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > 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: From christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd Wed Nov 9 15:58:26 2016 From: christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd (Christian Bope) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 23:58:26 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <555B28C8-1633-492E-8887-8FB85F31A232@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> <3BC106DF-C06A-4922-9483-AF675F2B485C@trstech.net> <555B28C8-1633-492E-8887-8FB85F31A232@afrinic.net> Message-ID: [Speaking on my own capacity] I would have loved to not get involved in this discussion about Board and PDP. But I think it is important to consider keeping the PDP, Buttom-up, Community Driven and Consensus based. And any policy adopted by the Board if need be shall go to the PDP for consideration. Regards, Bope 2016-11-09 21:32 GMT+08:00 Alan Barrett : > > > On 9 Nov 2016, at 18:36, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > > > What i am sensing here is Board being involved in the ?rough consensus? > process of the PDPWG which is different from board adopting its own > policies which shall be submitted to the community for endorsement. > > > > Ok. In case of deadlock as described above and if the board made the > decision over policy proposals being discussed, why bring the adopted > policy back to the same community for endorsement ? > > There are two ways to make policy: > > The normal way: Policy is made by the community and ratified by the Board. > See Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3, and the PDP. > > The unusual way: Policy is made by the Board and endorsed by the > community. See Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5. > > The changes under discussion do not affect the normal process (PDP, and > Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3). The changes under discussion are intended to > prevent the Board from abusing the unusual process (Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5). > > My example (not quoted) was intended to illustrate why it is sometimes a > good idea to let the Baord adopt policies that do not reach rough consensus. > > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > 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: From christianbope at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 16:01:19 2016 From: christianbope at gmail.com (Bope Domilongo Christian) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:01:19 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> <3BC106DF-C06A-4922-9483-AF675F2B485C@trstech.net> <555B28C8-1633-492E-8887-8FB85F31A232@afrinic.net> Message-ID: [Speaking on my own capacity] I would have loved to not get involved in this discussion about Board and PDP. But I think it is important to consider keeping the PDP, Buttom-up, Community Driven and Consensus based. And any policy adopted by the Board if need be shall go to the PDP for consideration. Regards, Bope On 9 November 2016 at 23:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > Le 9 nov. 2016 13:33, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > > > > > On 9 Nov 2016, at 18:36, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > > > > > What i am sensing here is Board being involved in the ?rough > consensus? process of the PDPWG which is different from board adopting its > own policies which shall be submitted to the community for endorsement. > > > > > > Ok. In case of deadlock as described above and if the board made the > decision over policy proposals being discussed, why bring the adopted > policy back to the same community for endorsement ? > > > > There are two ways to make policy: > > > > The normal way: Policy is made by the community and ratified by the > Board. See Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3, and the PDP. > > > > The unusual way: Policy is made by the Board and endorsed by the > community. See Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5. > > > > The changes under discussion do not affect the normal process (PDP, and > Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3). The changes under discussion are intended to > prevent the Board from abusing the unusual process (Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5). > > > > My example (not quoted) was intended to illustrate why it is sometimes > a good idea to let the Baord adopt policies that do not reach rough > consensus. > > > It seems to me that the problem that Alain is raising, is board > involvement in adoption of Policy proposals which do not reach rough > consensus for adoption at the PDPWG level . > > Regards > > Arnaud > > > > > Alan Barrett > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbmillogo at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 18:10:27 2016 From: jbmillogo at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 18:10:27 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <226BB900-3948-42E0-AB18-2F3A632214A4@afrinic.net> <3BC106DF-C06A-4922-9483-AF675F2B485C@trstech.net> <555B28C8-1633-492E-8887-8FB85F31A232@afrinic.net> Message-ID: +2 Christian . 2016-11-09 16:01 GMT+00:00 Bope Domilongo Christian : > [Speaking on my own capacity] > > I would have loved to not get involved in this discussion about Board and > PDP. But I think it is important to consider keeping the PDP, Buttom-up, > Community Driven and Consensus based. And any policy adopted by the Board > if need be shall go to the PDP for consideration. > > Regards, > Bope > > On 9 November 2016 at 23:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > >> Le 9 nov. 2016 13:33, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : >> > >> > >> > > On 9 Nov 2016, at 18:36, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> > > >> > > What i am sensing here is Board being involved in the ?rough >> consensus? process of the PDPWG which is different from board adopting its >> own policies which shall be submitted to the community for endorsement. >> > > >> > > Ok. In case of deadlock as described above and if the board made the >> decision over policy proposals being discussed, why bring the adopted >> policy back to the same community for endorsement ? >> > >> > There are two ways to make policy: >> > >> > The normal way: Policy is made by the community and ratified by the >> Board. See Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3, and the PDP. >> > >> > The unusual way: Policy is made by the Board and endorsed by the >> community. See Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5. >> > >> > The changes under discussion do not affect the normal process (PDP, and >> Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3). The changes under discussion are intended to >> prevent the Board from abusing the unusual process (Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5). >> > >> > My example (not quoted) was intended to illustrate why it is sometimes >> a good idea to let the Baord adopt policies that do not reach rough >> consensus. >> > >> It seems to me that the problem that Alain is raising, is board >> involvement in adoption of Policy proposals which do not reach rough >> consensus for adoption at the PDPWG level . >> >> Regards >> >> Arnaud >> >> > >> > Alan Barrett >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Community-Discuss mailing list >> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RPD mailing list >> RPD at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- Jean Baptiste MILLOGO Internet Society - Burkina Faso Chapter +226 74 92 10 10 contact at isoc-burkina.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Nov 9 20:52:27 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:52:27 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> > On Nov 9, 2016, at 02:04 , Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 7 Nov 2016, at 05:51, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> However, if 13.8 is to be implemented, there must be a mechanism defined for the priority, order of operations, and precedence involved as well as the procedure for resolving any conflicts between the election result and this provision. >>> >>> When there?s an election, it?s usually clear whether or not winning the election would violate one of the per-company, per-subregion, or per-country quota limits, but multiple simultaneous elections could cause confusion. Do we need to legislate an order of priority, such as elections for regional seats 1 to 6 take priority over elections for non-regional seats 7 and 8 when deciding which winner should be disqualified on grounds of violating one of the quota limits? >>> >>> When an elected Director changes their employment or place of residence, such that these limits are violated, then somebody has to resign, but is it the one who is moving, or the one who was already there? I don?t see a need to legislate this. >> >> If you do not legislate it, then what do you do when it comes up? In my experience, AfriNIC has a history of wasting substantial time and energy on dealing with situations not properly accounted for in its election procedures and/or open questions such as this when triggered. >> >> As such, I?d much rather see a policy considered by the community and adopted than a ?we?ll make it up as we go along if it becomes necessary? approach. > > I will propose text to deal with this. > >>>> Point 13, No objection, but a concern that the determination of ?endorsement? is left open to interpretation. Is that a majority vote of those present in the PPM? The determination of the PDWG co-chairs after the PPM as to whether endorsement was achieved? Some other criteria? I believe here, especially, we should be quite explicit in defining the process to be followed and the mechanism by which endorsement is given, or, most importantly, withheld. >>> >>> The vagueness was already present. >> >> This isn?t a surprise. However, I think taking this opportunity to remove that vagueness is worth consideration at least. >> >>> I think that community endorsement of policy created by the Board should require majority consent. Perhaps reversing a Board decision on resource policy should require a vote by the Members? >> >> So if I understand what you are proposing here, it would go to the PDWG meeting, where the community would vote on it. Majority of those who happen to be in the room would uphold the board?s decision. Absent that, it would then subsequently go to a vote of the membership requiring a majority of the membership to vote against it in order to reverse the board?s decision. To me, this presents multiple possible outcomes: >> >> 1. Community endorses ? Everything is fine, board decision stands. >> 2. Community rejects, membership does not reject ? Unclear what happens, I presume board decision stands? >> 3. Community rejects, membership rejects ? Board decision is? { Remanded to board for revision, Overturned, Rescinded pending corrective action by the board }? >> >> Also, over what period is the membership election held if necessary? How is voting handled in such case (mechanics)? >> >> Not trying to be argumentative here, just thinking through the potential outcomes and thinking somewhat aloud in hopes of getting input from other stakeholders. >> >> I would propose that for any such action, judging strictly by vote of those present in the PDWG meeting or members present at the General meeting isn?t entirely good. I?d prefer to see the issue include input from the PDWG mailing list, and, if applicable, the members-discuss and/or afrinic-discuss mailing lists as well. >> >> I?d like to see policies brought forth this way subjected to the same standard for consensus as policies developed through the normal process, the only difference being that these policies have a presumption of consensus by board fiat until that presumption is falsified by the PDWG upon verification of that falsification by the PDWG co-chairs. > > I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority. I think there is an alternative that is better? In the normal process, consensus of the community is required to enact the policy. In the process where the board has found it necessary to place policy in effect to be reviewed by the community, I believe that a default of ?Policy stands as board implemented? with a requirement for consensus to reverse the board decision is a perfectly adequate solution. In this way, if the community deadlocks, the board action stands. Only if there is consensus can the board be reversed. This still leaves the policy development completely in the hands of the stakeholders. IMHO, this is less likely to deadlock than your proposal where it is possible that the membership would oppose the board action by some narrow margin, but the community overall may support it. Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the intent here? >>>> Pont 14, Suggest instead of a 2 month notice period, require presentation at a PPM and on the appropriate -discuss mailing list(s) followed by a 60 day comment period thereafter. >>> >>> I think you misunderstood the proposal. The proposal is that (1) the Board discusses proposed fee changes with the community, for an unspecified time period; (2) the Board finalises the fee changes; (3) there is at least 60 days notice before the fee changes go into effect. >> >> You are correct, I did misunderstand, as that?s not what I remember reading in the proposal. >> >> I?m fine with what you state above so long as there is a specification that step 1 be for a minimum of 60 days and include discussion at one or more PPMs. > > I will propose 60 days discussion before the Board makes a decision on fees, and 60 days notice before such decision takes effect. > Sounds good. Owen From owen at delong.com Wed Nov 9 20:54:23 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 12:54:23 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> Message-ID: <5B003869-6635-4685-85AD-F87040F5455A@delong.com> > On Nov 9, 2016, at 03:14 , ALAIN AINA wrote: > > >> On Nov 9, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> >>> On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:16, ALAIN AINA wrote: >>> Hmmm. Are we moving the PDPWG powers in board hands? I do not understand the concept of deadlock in our bottom-up PDP ruled by "Rough Consensus? and not ?Full Consensus". I would expect to see all times, effort made by all parties(including board) to reach rough consensus on adoption/rejection? and not board making decisions. Is this not a discussion for the PDPWG ? >> >> The Bylaws have always given the Board the power to make policy without going throgh the PDWG process. The Board has never exercised that power in the past, but the ability is there in the Bylaws in case a good reason appears in the future. We are talking about reducing that power so that the Board cannot abuse it. > > Good Alan, but the way it was presented does not sound same as your last text. > But It was also proposed to just remove board adopting policy from bylaws and only depend on the PDP. May be an updated version of the PDP ? I?m having trouble parsing this, but any of the parsings I came up with seem to indicate that you are reading a different list than I am reading because that is not at all what I have seen proposed here. Owen From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Fri Nov 11 07:49:58 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:49:58 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] AFRINIC Board Representative to the NRO NC/ASO AC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:26 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Hillary Clinton was appointed as Secretary of State. She had also previously > been elected as a Senator representing the state of New York. > > I think she is likely to be the next POTUS as well. Wrong prediction sorry Owen From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Nov 11 07:55:53 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 13:25:53 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> Message-ID: <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> > On 10 Nov 2016, at 02:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority. > > I think there is an alternative that is better? > > In the normal process, consensus of the community is required to enact the policy. > > In the process where the board has found it necessary to place policy in effect to be reviewed by the community, I believe that a default of ?Policy stands as board implemented? with a requirement for consensus to reverse the board decision is a perfectly adequate solution. > > In this way, if the community deadlocks, the board action stands. Only if there is consensus can the board be reversed. > > This still leaves the policy development completely in the hands of the stakeholders. > > IMHO, this is less likely to deadlock than your proposal where it is possible that the membership would oppose the board action by some narrow margin, but the community overall may support it. > > Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the intent here? I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here?s suggested text: 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting. (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Nov 11 11:19:04 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 16:49:04 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> Dear community, Here is another revision of the proposed Bylaws changes. This might be the final version, because the notice of meeting needs to be sent no later than Tuesday 15 November. Alan Barrett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AFRINICProposedBylawsChanges-20161111.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 52653 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From dewole at tinitop.com Fri Nov 11 11:37:38 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:37:38 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource Applications and Approvals In-Reply-To: References: <2855e3ed-94f1-6dbd-fc6c-f3f4eac53ce9@tinitop.com> <866ea809-65a0-67ff-b77e-0136124bf895@tinitop.com> <48be2b0b-1f44-e544-b128-51b1f7cb255c@tinitop.com> Message-ID: Thanks to those that have contributed to this discussion. My opinion is that keeping the identity of applicants from the community (at a time when unscrupulous people may be getting creative in trying to receive resources wherever they may be available) is probably a loophole. The Registration Services Agreement ( http://www.afrinic.net/fr/services/rs/rsa ) makes it clear that AFRINIC will protect applicants' data and privacy; and we should do that. What I do not understand is how AFRINIC can be considered to have violated trust by the practice of sharing limited data with the community that has been entrusted with the responsibility of determining the organization's direction. Note that: 1. The suggested disclosure is to the organization that the applicant is looking to receive resources from and become a part of. 2. The community that (partial application information) is being disclosed to is charged with the responsibility of deciding how allocated/assigned resources are managed. 3. No intellectual property or personal details are to be shared; The organization name, the type of operation (and possibly type and size of resource requested) should be sufficient for transparency and accountability. I strongly agree however, that AFRINIC must continue to protect any business plans and intellectual property disclosed in received applications in order not to enable the applicants' or members' competition against them. This is the responsible thing to do. I just need to be convinced that sharing the name of an applicant and the resources requested (in a time of limited supply,) constitutes a threat to the applicant's business or a violation of trust. If a company intends to consume Internet resources that are likely to help develop that region, I doubt that they would want to hide information about who they are and what type of organization they are running. At least, not from the community responsible for responsibly managing resources in the same region. For applicants in a sensitive area of operation like national security or one of the usual opaque suspects, exceptions can be made. These are just my thoughts anyway; eventually, it's up to us all to accept, discard or refine if we think there is any value. Regards, Dewole. On 07/11/2016 18:08, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Dewole, > > That information is already available based on space allocated. It > would be a violation of the MSA and privacy clauses to disclose any > application before it is granted. > > The whois database contains the rest of the information as does the > delegation database, just a matter of correlating them. I for one > would not support AfriNIC directly exposing the names of clients being > allocated space, as I believe that it violates aspects of the MSA and > violates the principles of trust. > > Andrew > > *From:*Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at tinitop.com] > *Sent:* 07 November 2016 18:15 > *To:* mje at posix.co.za; General Discussions of AFRINIC > > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Regular updates on Number Resource > Applications and Approvals > > Responsibility of requesting entities is what I meant, Mark. Please do > not attempt to declare anything on my behalf. > > If an applicant knows the community sees in realtime, he/she is less > likely to put in phony stuff that just wastes the hostmasters' time > and increases the time taken to process legit requests. > > Dewole. > > On 07/11/2016 16:09, Mark Elkins wrote: > > On 07/11/2016 16:53, Dewole Ajao wrote: > > Once a week is good. ARIN has a daily issued feed but that's a bit > > different from what I'm suggesting. > > I agree the actual allocated/assigned ranges need not be disclosed; I do > > however think that sharing the names of (applicant) organizations will > > help with responsibility and possibly reduce the occurrence of phony > > applications (if there have been any). > > Isn't that basically declaring you don't trust AFRINIC staff to do the > > right thing? > > What I tend to hear (happened twice today) is that the Hostmasters are > > so strict - its extremely difficult to get things done (according to the > > entities moaning at me). > > I therefore trust the Hostmasters - they are doing the right thing. > > Dewole. > > On 07/11/2016 15:35, Mark Elkins wrote: > > Interesting. I think though a once-a-week stats figure would be > > sufficient - perhaps with a projected end date? > > I've seen that before somewhere.... > > AFRINIC should not give out the names of the organisations receiving the > > address space or the actual ranges themselves though. > > On 07/11/2016 16:29, Dewole Ajao wrote: > > Dear Community, > > I was wondering if anyone else thinks it would be useful to see > > weekly/daily details (in human readable format) of new applications and > > approvals for Internet number resources perhaps as a weekly/daily email > > from AFRINIC to this (or the members) list. > > Given increased depletion rates, I think having these details in > > (almost) real-time will increase the community's awareness rather than > > rely solely on the biannual statistical updates (which in any case do > > not contain details of who is making attempts to acquire number > > resources). I think the Org Name, Country, Type and size of resource > > requested/approved would be even more useful than the resource type/size > > and country data already available in delegation stats at > > ftp://ftp.afrinic.net/pub/stats/afrinic/ > > This would be purely operational and a community value addition so it > > should not require a new policy, right? > > Regards, > > Dewole Ajao. > > (in my capacity as a community member) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Nov 11 11:51:50 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:51:50 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7C2E74BC-3FF7-4E30-9151-1888C4C2B661@nftconsult.com> On 11/11/16, 10:55 AM, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > >> On 10 Nov 2016, at 02:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority. >> >> I think there is an alternative that is better? >> >> In the normal process, consensus of the community is required to enact the policy. >> >> In the process where the board has found it necessary to place policy in effect to be reviewed by the community, I believe that a default of ?Policy stands as board implemented? with a requirement for consensus to reverse the board decision is a perfectly adequate solution. >> >> In this way, if the community deadlocks, the board action stands. Only if there is consensus can the board be reversed. >> >> This still leaves the policy development completely in the hands of the stakeholders. >> >> IMHO, this is less likely to deadlock than your proposal where it is possible that the membership would oppose the board action by some narrow margin, but the community overall may support it. >> >> Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the intent here? > >I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. > >My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here?s suggested text: > >11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: >(a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting. >(b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. I do not have suggested changes to (b) but this would be a problem, in that a policy can be put in place to achieve a onetime objective that might not be supported by community fully aware that the policy will be rejected. We might want to think of something like an online quick forum to give community an opportunity to understand the urgent need. This maintains the openness. And if a reversal is needed at the AGM it does not become an issue. Badru > >Alan Barrett > > >_______________________________________________ >Community-Discuss mailing list >Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From aalain at trstech.net Fri Nov 11 14:23:43 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:23:43 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <7C2E74BC-3FF7-4E30-9151-1888C4C2B661@nftconsult.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7C2E74BC-3FF7-4E30-9151-1888C4C2B661@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <0A77CB66-9035-450A-94D2-56F597EF3ACD@trstech.net> Hello, > On Nov 11, 2016, at 3:51 PM, Badru Ntege wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/11/16, 10:55 AM, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: > >> >>> On 10 Nov 2016, at 02:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority. >>> >>> I think there is an alternative that is better? >>> >>> In the normal process, consensus of the community is required to enact the policy. >>> >>> In the process where the board has found it necessary to place policy in effect to be reviewed by the community, I believe that a default of ?Policy stands as board implemented? with a requirement for consensus to reverse the board decision is a perfectly adequate solution. >>> >>> In this way, if the community deadlocks, the board action stands. Only if there is consensus can the board be reversed. >>> >>> This still leaves the policy development completely in the hands of the stakeholders. >>> >>> IMHO, this is less likely to deadlock than your proposal where it is possible that the membership would oppose the board action by some narrow margin, but the community overall may support it. >>> >>> Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the intent here? >> >> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. >> >> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here?s suggested text: >> >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: >> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting. >> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. > > I do not have suggested changes to (b) but this would be a problem, in that a policy can be put in place to achieve a onetime objective that might not be supported by community fully aware that the policy will be rejected. > > We might want to think of something like an online quick forum to give community an opportunity to understand the urgent need. This maintains the openness. And if a reversal is needed at the AGM it does not become an issue. This is inline with what i suggested two days ago. keep 11.4 and 11.5 as they are and update the PDP to add board policy adoption process, bearing in mind that PDP already has a provision for varying the process. Section 3.6 of the CPM ==== 3.6 Varying the Process The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required. The decision to vary the process is taken by the Working Group Chair. There must be an explanation about why the variance is needed. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be less than four weeks. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting. ====== Thanks ?Alain > > Badru > > > >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From aalain at trstech.net Fri Nov 11 14:29:36 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 18:29:36 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <5B003869-6635-4685-85AD-F87040F5455A@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <5B003869-6635-4685-85AD-F87040F5455A@delong.com> Message-ID: <48FE3D13-DBB3-4FD7-BEE0-7A098D77DE88@trstech.net> > On Nov 10, 2016, at 12:54 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> >> On Nov 9, 2016, at 03:14 , ALAIN AINA wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 9, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 9 Nov 2016, at 16:16, ALAIN AINA wrote: >>>> Hmmm. Are we moving the PDPWG powers in board hands? I do not understand the concept of deadlock in our bottom-up PDP ruled by "Rough Consensus? and not ?Full Consensus". I would expect to see all times, effort made by all parties(including board) to reach rough consensus on adoption/rejection? and not board making decisions. Is this not a discussion for the PDPWG ? >>> >>> The Bylaws have always given the Board the power to make policy without going throgh the PDWG process. The Board has never exercised that power in the past, but the ability is there in the Bylaws in case a good reason appears in the future. We are talking about reducing that power so that the Board cannot abuse it. >> >> Good Alan, but the way it was presented does not sound same as your last text. >> But It was also proposed to just remove board adopting policy from bylaws and only depend on the PDP. May be an updated version of the PDP ? > > I?m having trouble parsing this, but any of the parsings I came up with seem to indicate that you are reading a different list than I am reading because that is not at all what I have seen proposed here. https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000343.html response to point 12 One should admit that the format of the discussions on this important accountability improvement does not make it easy to follow and digest, but other alternatives suggested were not accepted. Thanks ?Alain > > Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From madomey at hotmail.com Fri Nov 11 14:47:20 2016 From: madomey at hotmail.com (Marcus K. G. Adomey) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:47:20 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality Message-ID: Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with the discussion on the bylaw? Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. Thank you, Marcus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dewole at tinitop.com Fri Nov 11 14:58:33 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 15:58:33 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Hi Marcus, I'm not holding brief for the Chairman and/or CEO but since you have sent this to the community, I'm hoping I'm not the only whose curiosity has been stimulated to peak levels. Please share references to this "illegality" you speak of so we are better informed. Regards, Dewole. On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: > Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, > > The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the > illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are > about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: > > Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding > with the discussion on the bylaw? > > Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. > > Thank you, > > > > Marcus > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From honest1989 at gmail.com Fri Nov 11 16:05:34 2016 From: honest1989 at gmail.com (Honest Ornella GANKPA) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 17:05:34 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Dear Alan Thank you for sharing this On item [14] I believe the board should consult the community as well as the members. The reason is that memebers are a subset of the community and in my opinion, it does not make sense to give notification period to community when they had no say in the decision. I believe all views should be welcomed Honest Ornella GANKPA 2016-11-11 12:19 GMT+01:00 Alan Barrett : > Dear community, > > Here is another revision of the proposed Bylaws changes. This might be > the final version, because the notice of meeting needs to be sent no later > than Tuesday 15 November. > > Alan Barrett > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Nov 11 16:53:02 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 19:53:02 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification In-Reply-To: <6ed8a2cf-1f71-c166-78e7-4348b3c237a9@gmail.com> References: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> <6ed8a2cf-1f71-c166-78e7-4348b3c237a9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > Dear Abel, Noah and Members, > > Dear Sunday, > The Board met on 10th August 2016 and I tabled the matter as promised. > > A resolution was voted upon, I have not been able to come back to you on > this because the Board hasn't approved the minutes of the last meeting for > publication. That would normally be done at a subsequent meeting which > would be in October 2016. > > > Did the BoD ever meet/seat in October and where the minutes of that meeting approved. I went here http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bod/meeting/2016 so that I can read but I see nothing. > > Sunday. > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Nov 11 20:02:35 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:02:35 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On Nov 10, 2016, at 23:55 , Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 10 Nov 2016, at 02:22, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> I believe that such policies should not be subject to the usual rough-consensus requirement. In cases where the community is deadlocked and unable to reach consensus, I believe that it should be possible for the Board to mke a decision that clears the deadlock. I suggest that only the Members should be able to overturn such a Board decision, by a vote with two-thirds supermajority. >> >> I think there is an alternative that is better? >> >> In the normal process, consensus of the community is required to enact the policy. >> >> In the process where the board has found it necessary to place policy in effect to be reviewed by the community, I believe that a default of ?Policy stands as board implemented? with a requirement for consensus to reverse the board decision is a perfectly adequate solution. >> >> In this way, if the community deadlocks, the board action stands. Only if there is consensus can the board be reversed. >> >> This still leaves the policy development completely in the hands of the stakeholders. >> >> IMHO, this is less likely to deadlock than your proposal where it is possible that the membership would oppose the board action by some narrow margin, but the community overall may support it. >> >> Does that make sense, or am I misunderstanding the intent here? > > I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. > > My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here?s suggested text: > > 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting. > (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. How about this: 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public policy meeting. (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as directed by the Board. Would that work? Owen From owen at delong.com Fri Nov 11 20:18:29 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 12:18:29 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7FC397EC-0633-4209-93D8-A343F086544E@delong.com> Alan, First, thanks for your continued and tireless efforts on this project. Item 4, I propose changing the text in 13.5 from: ?13.5 Each of the following six sub-regions of Africa shall be represented by one director as indicated below:? (which I think is incongruous with the new intent) to: ?13.5 One director shall be chosen from each of the following six sub-regions of Africa:? There is probably an even better way to say this, but I think it is important to convey that the directors are chosen to be from the sub-regions in question, but not chosen to represent their specific sub-region. I like the new 13.6. Your new Item 5 is much more clear, thank you. Notwithstanding my continued opposition to Item 6, I would suggest that rather than ?such Director is not eligible for re-election? perhaps the phrase ?said person is ineligible to run for or hold any seat on the Board? may be a better way to state the intent. Other than those small items, I think it looks quite good. Owen From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 06:05:17 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:05:17 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <0A77CB66-9035-450A-94D2-56F597EF3ACD@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7C2E74BC-3FF7-4E30-9151-1888C4C2B661@nftconsult.com> <0A77CB66-9035-450A-94D2-56F597EF3ACD@trstech.net> Message-ID: <93124532-2DFF-4CA5-AF6E-B774C932C24D@afrinic.net> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 18:23, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> We might want to think of something like an online quick forum to give community an opportunity to understand the urgent need. This maintains the openness. And if a reversal is needed at the AGM it does not become an issue. > > This is inline with what i suggested two days ago. keep 11.4 and 11.5 as they are and update the PDP to add board policy adoption process, bearing in mind that PDP already has a provision for varying the process. I agree that adding something to the PDP to cover the case of policy adopted by the Board would make sense. Even if that is done, I still think that modifying 11.5 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: (i) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public policy meeting. (ii) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. The text in (i) is already present in the bylaws. The text in (ii) is new. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 06:09:37 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:09:37 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <48FE3D13-DBB3-4FD7-BEE0-7A098D77DE88@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <5B003869-6635-4685-85AD-F87040F5455A@delong.com> <48FE3D13-DBB3-4FD7-BEE0-7A098D77DE88@trstech.net> Message-ID: > On 11 Nov 2016, at 18:29, ALAIN AINA wrote: >>> But It was also proposed to just remove board adopting policy from bylaws and only depend on the PDP. May be an updated version of the PDP ? >> >> I?m having trouble parsing this, but any of the parsings I came up with seem to indicate that you are reading a different list than I am reading because that is not at all what I have seen proposed here. > > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000343.html response to point 12 Thet message suggests that the ability of the Board to make policy should be removed. I disagree, and I will not propose a change to the Bylaws to do that. Somebody else is free to propose a change. > One should admit that the format of the discussions on this important accountability improvement does not make it easy to follow and digest, but other alternatives suggested were not accepted. I think you sugegsted a committee, and I said that the Governance Committee will be able to do this in future. The current round of changes are not a complete review of the bylaws. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 06:10:36 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:10:36 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4A060F14-44AE-4796-B39E-96E00EE29CE6@afrinic.net> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:05, Honest Ornella GANKPA wrote: > On item [14] I believe the board should consult the community as well as the members. The reason is that memebers are a subset of the community and in my opinion, it does not make sense to give notification period to community when they had no say in the decision. I believe all views should be welcomed Good point. I will make this change. Alan Barrett From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sat Nov 12 06:10:59 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 06:10:59 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <11d6c94a-bfcf-7ff9-8ce2-fdc3289a4594@posix.co.za> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <11d6c94a-bfcf-7ff9-8ce2-fdc3289a4594@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <2CB98C4A-7846-4F40-A62F-9272CDD7D0D6@nftconsult.com> Comments inline On 9 Nov 2016, at 2:37 pm, Mark Elkins wrote: > > And if the Board has never abused this PDP power (never even used it at > all) since inception yet has always had the power to do this - why then > is it really a problem? There's always a first time so a need to be proactive > > The membership could still look for blood in other ways if necessary. I think this sentiment can be devisive and past events tend to make it an unfortunate norm. See my comment below > > If we do have such a Bylaw (to stop potential abuse) - this would have > to be done by a membership vote - not a PDP meeting "consensus". This > might be up to 5 months away - time for lots of damage - etc. > > On the other hand - if the Board decided that they needed to have an > expedited policy introduced - and they asked the Membership to vote > (electronically) on it - AFRINIC staff could probably pull that exercise > off within a working week - which should be fast enough. Fully agree we could even have an electronic system built and ready for other potential issues that community could have input or board could gauge community sentiment on issues to assist in decision making. > > The Board is not stupid, neither is the membership. > > > Just thoughts. > > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South From madomey at hotmail.com Sat Nov 12 06:17:43 2016 From: madomey at hotmail.com (Marcus K. G. Adomey) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 06:17:43 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> References: , <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Message-ID: Hi Dewole, Kindly read https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html Thanks Marcus ________________________________ From: Dewole Ajao Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 2:58:33 PM To: Marcus K. G. Adomey; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality Hi Marcus, I'm not holding brief for the Chairman and/or CEO but since you have sent this to the community, I'm hoping I'm not the only whose curiosity has been stimulated to peak levels. Please share references to this "illegality" you speak of so we are better informed. Regards, Dewole. On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with the discussion on the bylaw? Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. Thank you, Marcus _______________________________________________ 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: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 06:20:56 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:20:56 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <2CB98C4A-7846-4F40-A62F-9272CDD7D0D6@nftconsult.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <3F7BE8D4-6CF1-4E1D-84A7-A533B645D48B@afrinic.net> <01706535-7528-4E8E-AF1E-B408C9EC9ECA@trstech.net> <11d6c94a-bfcf-7ff9-8ce2-fdc3289a4594@posix.co.za> <2CB98C4A-7846-4F40-A62F-9272CDD7D0D6@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <14FD4AB7-0FF5-447D-ACFB-E8CCCB946158@afrinic.net> > On 12 Nov 2016, at 10:10, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Comments inline > > > On 9 Nov 2016, at 2:37 pm, Mark Elkins wrote: >> >> And if the Board has never abused this PDP power (never even used it at >> all) since inception yet has always had the power to do this - why then >> is it really a problem? > > There's always a first time so a need to be proactive Exactly! Laws should we written in such a way that, even if your enemies become the rulers, the laws are still fair. >> If we do have such a Bylaw (to stop potential abuse) - this would have >> to be done by a membership vote - not a PDP meeting "consensus". This >> might be up to 5 months away - time for lots of damage - etc. >> >> On the other hand - if the Board decided that they needed to have an >> expedited policy introduced - and they asked the Membership to vote >> (electronically) on it - AFRINIC staff could probably pull that exercise >> off within a working week - which should be fast enough. > > Fully agree we could even have an electronic system built and ready for other potential issues that community could have input or board could gauge community sentiment on issues to assist in decision making. Yes, that could be done within the current PDP, under the provisions for varying the process. However, the PDP can be changed much more easily than the Bylaws can be changed, and there remains the risk that a future version of the PDP might (accidentally) make it impossible for useful new policies to be made. This is one of the reasons why it is essential for the Bylaws to give the Board a way of making policy bypassing the PDP. That power of the Board should be subjected to oversight by the community and/or the members, but should not be removed. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 06:43:59 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 10:43:59 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <7FC397EC-0633-4209-93D8-A343F086544E@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <7FC397EC-0633-4209-93D8-A343F086544E@delong.com> Message-ID: > On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:18, Owen DeLong wrote: > Item 4, I propose changing the text in 13.5 from: > > ?13.5 Each of the following six sub-regions of Africa shall be represented by one director as indicated below:? > (which I think is incongruous with the new intent) > > to: > > ?13.5 One director shall be chosen from each of the following six sub-regions of Africa:? > > There is probably an even better way to say this, but I think it is important to convey that the directors are > chosen to be from the sub-regions in question, but not chosen to represent their specific sub-region. I think I like that. Thank you. It removes the idea that Directors ?represent? sub-regions, while remaining vague about whether they have to reside in the sub-region and what happens if they move. 13.5 [changed first sentence] One Director shall be chosen from each of the following six sub-regions of Africa, as indicated below: (i) Northern Africa (seat 1); (ii) Western Africa (seat 2); (iii) Indian Ocean (seat 3); (iv) Central Africa (seat 4); (v) Southern Africa (seat 5); and (vi) Eastern Africa (seat 6). 13.6 [new article to be inserted] Notwithstanding the regional criterion of elections of Directors for seats 1 to 6 (both inclusive) as specified in Article 13.4(i) and 13.5, all Directors so elected, shall exercise their powers in accordance with the Act and always act in good faith and solely in the best interests of the company. 13.7 [new number, with no change from previous text] Each Director elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this Constitution shall hold office for a term of three years, which term of office shall expire on the date of the Annual General Members? Meeting held on or around the third anniversary of the date of appointment of such Elected Director. Subject to Article [new number for what used to be 13.6], such Director shall be eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of Office. > Notwithstanding my continued opposition to Item 6, I would suggest that rather than ?such Director is not > eligible for re-election? perhaps the phrase ?said person is ineligible to run for or hold any seat on the Board? > may be a better way to state the intent. Thnk you. I like parts of that, but I think it prevents an ex-Director from becoming CEO (who also has a seat on the Board), so I restricted it to the elected seats. I now have the following text: [13.7 as new number for what used to be the second paragraph of 13.5] Each Director elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this Constitution shall hold office for a term of three years, which term of office shall expire on the date of the Annual General Members? Meeting held on or about the third anniversary of the date of appointment of such elected Director. Subject to Article [13.8 or other new number for what used to be 13.6], and subject to the term limits in this Article, such Director shall be eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of office. No such Director shall serve more than two consecutive terms of office. After a person completes two consecutive terms of office as such a Director, there shall be a three-year period during which such person is not eligible to be elected or appointed to any of the seats referred to in Articles 13.4(i) or 13.4(ii). Alan Barrett From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Sat Nov 12 07:17:12 2016 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (abel ELITCHA) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 07:17:12 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <7FC397EC-0633-4209-93D8-A343F086544E@delong.com> Message-ID: Dear Alan, On item{6}, You propose two (2) consecutive terms and one term break. Nevertheless, the community has proposed a one term break after one term on office before being eligible for re-election. Also, if any change adopted to the terms in the bylaws, when will it take effect? Will the current directors be affected? One more point, did the consecutive terms include terms as alternate Director or Full Director as described in the current Bylaws? Thanks. --Abel Le 12 nov. 2016 6:44 AM, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:18, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Item 4, I propose changing the text in 13.5 from: > > > > ?13.5 Each of the following six sub-regions of Africa shall be > represented by one director as indicated below:? > > (which I think is incongruous with the new intent) > > > > to: > > > > ?13.5 One director shall be chosen from each of the following six > sub-regions of Africa:? > > > > There is probably an even better way to say this, but I think it is > important to convey that the directors are > > chosen to be from the sub-regions in question, but not chosen to > represent their specific sub-region. > > I think I like that. Thank you. It removes the idea that Directors > ?represent? sub-regions, while remaining vague about whether they have to > reside in the sub-region and what happens if they move. > > 13.5 [changed first sentence] One Director shall be chosen from > each of the following six sub-regions of Africa, as indicated below: > (i) Northern Africa (seat 1); > (ii) Western Africa (seat 2); > (iii) Indian Ocean (seat 3); > (iv) Central Africa (seat 4); > (v) Southern Africa (seat 5); and > (vi) Eastern Africa (seat 6). > > 13.6 [new article to be inserted] Notwithstanding the > regional criterion of elections of Directors for seats 1 to 6 (both > inclusive) as specified in Article 13.4(i) and 13.5, all Directors so > elected, shall exercise their powers in accordance with the Act and always > act in good faith and solely in the best interests of the company. > > 13.7 [new number, with no change from previous text] Each Director > elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this Constitution shall hold > office for a term of three years, which term of office shall expire on the > date of the Annual General Members? Meeting held on or around the third > anniversary of the date of appointment of such Elected Director. Subject to > Article [new number for what used to be 13.6], such Director shall be > eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of Office. > > > Notwithstanding my continued opposition to Item 6, I would suggest that > rather than ?such Director is not > > eligible for re-election? perhaps the phrase ?said person is ineligible > to run for or hold any seat on the Board? > > may be a better way to state the intent. > > Thnk you. I like parts of that, but I think it prevents an ex-Director > from becoming CEO (who also has a seat on the Board), so I restricted it to > the elected seats. > > I now have the following text: > > [13.7 as new number for what used to be the second paragraph of 13.5] > Each Director elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this > Constitution shall hold office for a term of three years, which term of > office shall expire on the date of the Annual General Members? Meeting held > on or about the third anniversary of the date of appointment of such > elected Director. Subject to Article [13.8 or other new number for what > used to be 13.6], and subject to the term limits in this Article, such > Director shall be eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of > office. No such Director shall serve more than two consecutive terms of > office. After a person completes two consecutive terms of office as such a > Director, there shall be a three-year period during which such person is > not eligible to be elected or appointed to any of the seats referred to in > Articles 13.4(i) or 13.4(ii). > > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 08:18:47 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 12:18:47 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <7FC397EC-0633-4209-93D8-A343F086544E@delong.com> Message-ID: <524D7652-2445-4126-B615-9DF146A4C946@afrinic.net> > On 12 Nov 2016, at 11:17, abel ELITCHA wrote: > On item{6}, > You propose two (2) consecutive terms and one term break. Nevertheless, the community has proposed a one term break after one term on office before being eligible for re-election. I am aware that one or two people have suggested a limit of one term (3 years). Others have suggested no limit at all. In my opinion, a limit of 3 years is much too short, and I will not propose a bylaws change to introduce such a short limit. > Also, if any change adopted to the terms in the bylaws, when will it take effect? Will the current directors be affected? Yes, bylaws changes take effect immediately. > One more point, did the consecutive terms include terms as alternate Director or Full Director as described in the current Bylaws? We no longer have alternate directors, but I think the question is: What happens to somebody who previously served a term as an alternate Director under the previous bylaws, and is now serving a term as a Director under the current bylaws, without a break in between the two terms? Does that count as two consecutive terms for the purposes of any term limit? I don?t know the answer. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 10:22:32 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:22:32 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:02, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. >> >> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here?s suggested text: >> >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: >> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting. >> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. > > How about this: > > 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public policy meeting. > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as directed by the Board. > > Would that work? Sorry, no, that doesn?t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG chair or a rough consensus process. The Bylaws say that there must be a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works. The concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new version of the PDP. It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on something that can be changed outside the Bylaws. Alan Barrett From christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd Sat Nov 12 10:52:28 2016 From: christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd (Christian Bope) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 18:52:28 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 12 Nov 2016 6:24 p.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:02, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. > >> > >> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here?s suggested text: > >> > >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: > >> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting. > >> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. > > > > How about this: > > > > 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: > > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public policy meeting. > > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as directed by the Board. > > > > Would that work? > > Sorry, no, that doesn?t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG chair or a rough consensus process. The Bylaws say that there must be a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works. The concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new version of the PDP. It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on something that can be changed outside the Bylaws. > > Alan Barrett [Speaking on my own capacity.] As stated in my previous post related to item 13. There are 2 key element we should all keep in mind and maintain. 1. PDP guidelines shall be updated to describe how Board can adopt a policy. 2. Board adopted policy must be ratified by the community. If not it is rejected. Regards > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 11:04:01 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:04:01 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> [I changed the subject to match the discussion] > On 12 Nov 2016, at 10:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: > On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: >> Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, >> >> The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: >> >> Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with the discussion on the bylaw? >> >> Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. > > Kindly read https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html That message is about a possible conflict between the limit of no more than 5 proxies specified in the Bylaws article 12.12(viii), and the Companies Act. I have heard several different legal opinions on this, both first hand and indirectly. My current opinion, which is subject to change if I hear additional legal arguments, is that: * Associate Members may not vote, so proxies are irrelevant to them. * Proxy limits, if any, apply only to elections, not to votes on resolutions. * The limit in the Bylaws article 12.12(viii) does not apply to proxies issued by Registered Members, but does apply to proxies issued by Resource Members. * Although the limit in the Bylaws section 12.12(viii) is phrased in terms of proxies carried by a ?member entitled to vote?, the limit applies equally to proxies carried by an individual person who is not a member. In other words, the limit applies to proxies that are used during elections, and that are issued by Resource Members, and that are carried either by other members or by individual people who are not members. The limit does not apply to proxies that are issued by Registered Members. The limit does not apply to proxies used during votes that are not elections. Again, the above is my current understanding of the situation, but it is subject to change if I receive additional legal opinions. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Nov 12 11:11:20 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:11:20 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <97F609D7-A6FF-450D-8DD0-68E559F6F6CD@afrinic.net> > On 12 Nov 2016, at 14:52, Christian Bope wrote: > [Speaking on my own capacity.] > > As stated in my previous post related to item 13. > There are 2 key element we should all keep in mind and maintain. > 1. PDP guidelines shall be updated to describe how Board can adopt a policy. > 2. Board adopted policy must be ratified by the community. If not it is rejected. I?d say PDP guidelines should be updated to say how the community ratifies or rejects Board-adopted policy. On your point 2, yes, the proposed changes to Article 11.5 will give the community the power to reject Board-adopted policy. Here?s the current version of the text: 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: (i) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public policy meeting. (ii) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. Sub-part (i) is the existing text. Sub-part (ii) is new, and makes it clear that rejection by the community leads to the policy being cancelled. Alan Barrett From amelnaud at gmail.com Sat Nov 12 12:12:14 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 12:12:14 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <97F609D7-A6FF-450D-8DD0-68E559F6F6CD@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <97F609D7-A6FF-450D-8DD0-68E559F6F6CD@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello, ? can see under this link https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html Special Policy Actions 10.1 Emergency PDP If urgently necessary pursuant to ARIN?s mission, the Board of Trustees may initiate policy by declaring an emergency and posting a Recommended Draft Policy on the PPML for discussion for a minimum of 14 days. The Advisory Council will review the Recommended Draft Policy within 7 days of the end of the discussion period and make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees. If the Board of Trustees adopts the policy, it will be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting for reconsideration Arin has this in its pdp.Anything to learn from for this discussion? Le 12 nov. 2016 11:11, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 14:52, Christian Bope > wrote: > > [Speaking on my own capacity.] > > > > As stated in my previous post related to item 13. > > There are 2 key element we should all keep in mind and maintain. > > 1. PDP guidelines shall be updated to describe how Board can adopt a > policy. > > 2. Board adopted policy must be ratified by the community. If not it is > rejected. > > I?d say PDP guidelines should be updated to say how the community ratifies > or rejects Board-adopted policy. > > On your point 2, yes, the proposed changes to Article 11.5 will give the > community the power to reject Board-adopted policy. Here?s the current > version of the text: > > 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: > (i) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 > shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public > policy meeting. > (ii) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not > endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following > its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy > prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. > > Sub-part (i) is the existing text. Sub-part (ii) is new, and makes it > clear that rejection by the community leads to the policy being cancelled. > > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From kasender27 at gmail.com Sat Nov 12 12:13:09 2016 From: kasender27 at gmail.com (Remy Kasende) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 14:13:09 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Partiption on discus Message-ID: Hi all, I whant to participate on the discution. R?my Kassende-kazadi. Senior IT Network-support and Telecom's Infrastructures. kinshasa DRC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sat Nov 12 13:54:36 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 19:24:36 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <97F609D7-A6FF-450D-8DD0-68E559F6F6CD@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello Arnaud, Even though I think the current PDP allows the Co-Chairs to vary the process incase such emergency occurs, It's fine to update the PDP to define such a clear process similar to what you referenced. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 12 Nov 2016 13:13, "Arnaud AMELINA" wrote: > Hello, > ? can see under this link https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Special Policy Actions > > 10.1 Emergency PDP > > If urgently necessary pursuant to ARIN?s mission, the Board of Trustees > may initiate policy by declaring an emergency and posting a Recommended > Draft Policy on the PPML for discussion for a minimum of 14 days. The > Advisory Council will review the Recommended Draft Policy within 7 days of > the end of the discussion period and make a recommendation to the Board of > Trustees. If the Board of Trustees adopts the policy, it will be presented > at the next Public Policy Meeting for reconsideration > > Arin has this in its pdp.Anything to learn from for this discussion? > > Le 12 nov. 2016 11:11, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > >> >> > On 12 Nov 2016, at 14:52, Christian Bope >> wrote: >> > [Speaking on my own capacity.] >> > >> > As stated in my previous post related to item 13. >> > There are 2 key element we should all keep in mind and maintain. >> > 1. PDP guidelines shall be updated to describe how Board can adopt a >> policy. >> > 2. Board adopted policy must be ratified by the community. If not it is >> rejected. >> >> I?d say PDP guidelines should be updated to say how the community >> ratifies or rejects Board-adopted policy. >> >> On your point 2, yes, the proposed changes to Article 11.5 will give the >> community the power to reject Board-adopted policy. Here?s the current >> version of the text: >> >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: >> (i) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 >> shall be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public >> policy meeting. >> (ii) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not >> endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following >> its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy >> prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. >> >> Sub-part (i) is the existing text. Sub-part (ii) is new, and makes it >> clear that rejection by the community leads to the policy being cancelled. >> >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From beshun at garnet.edu.gh Sat Nov 12 17:58:29 2016 From: beshun at garnet.edu.gh (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 17:58:29 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> Message-ID: Dear Alan, See comments below.... On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 12:21 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > >> 15.6 A director of the company shall, where he has a potential conflict > of interest in any item brought before the board, disclose such conflict to > the board. Said director shall recuse himself from voting on any such > matter before the board where a conflict exists. > > > > The term ?transaction? is intended to refer to anything that the Board > does (not only financial transactions), but I prefer your wording (?any > item? instead of ?transaction?). > > More than just the term transaction, there was the wording that implied it > was a transaction between the specific board member and the company rather > than any particular agenda item before the entire board, but sounds like we > are on the same page at this point anyway, so I think that?s good. > The proposed 15.6 on conflict of interest states that members who disclosed conflict of interest shall recuse themselves from voting As it stands a member can participate in discussions but not vote. I think the member in conflict should recuse from both all discussions and voting on the issue. regards, Benjamin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From vitus at ghana.com Sat Nov 12 20:49:46 2016 From: vitus at ghana.com (Vitus Foli Aborogu) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 20:49:46 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> Dear CEO, I think 1 per org, 1 per country and 2 per region is better. Diversity, refreshment of expertise and coverage for 54 countries. Regards, -Vitus > On November 11, 2016 at 11:19 AM Alan Barrett wrote: > > > Dear community, > > Here is another revision of the proposed Bylaws changes. This might be the final version, because the notice of meeting needs to be sent no later than Tuesday 15 November. > > Alan Barrett > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sun Nov 13 04:05:54 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:05:54 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> Message-ID: <3A067134-B916-49F0-B480-E8A40E3AD7A9@afrinic.net> > On 12 Nov 2016, at 21:58, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > The proposed 15.6 on conflict of interest states that members who disclosed conflict of interest shall recuse themselves from voting > > As it stands a member can participate in discussions but not vote. I think the member in conflict should recuse from both all discussions and voting on the issue. At present, there is nothing in either the Act or the Bylaws about conflict of interest for Directors. (There is something in the Act about conflict of interest for an auditor.) I think that recusal from voting is important enough to be entrenched in the bylaws. Recusal from participation in discussion is often a good idea, but it?s easy to imagine cases where it would not be a good idea (for example, the conflicted director may be able to answer questions from other directors), so I am not proposing to add that to the bylaws. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sun Nov 13 04:21:59 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:21:59 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: > On 13 Nov 2016, at 00:49, Vitus Foli Aborogu wrote: > I think 1 per org, 1 per country and 2 per region is better. > Diversity, refreshment of expertise and coverage for 54 countries. I agree that diversity is important, and I would encourage the members to consider diversity when they elect Directors. Diversity is not the only consideration, and I would also urge the members to consider experience and skill. It may easily happen that multiple good candidates come from the same country or organisation, and the voting members should be free to choose how they balance diversity against other considerations. My main goal in the current round of Bylaws changes is to make it very difficult for AFRINIC to be captured by a minority interest. The proposed limits of two Directors per organisation and two Directors per sub-region are more than sufficient to ensure that no one organisation or one sub-region has the majority of votes in the Board. Alan Barrett From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sat Nov 12 12:17:14 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 15:17:14 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <50B1E4D4-D27A-4C8B-A440-1F9A1C9991F9@nftconsult.com> Marcus You pose an interesting point. Seemed to have missed that dialogue but input and guidance from those concerned would be of interest. So my simple understanding is that we are, have been and are still breaking the law. If so the best person to shine light on this would be the legal council and not chair or should I say legal council through chair. ???? On 11/12/16, 9:17 AM, "Marcus K. G. Adomey" wrote: Hi Dewole, Kindly read https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html Thanks Marcus From: Dewole Ajao Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 2:58:33 PM To: Marcus K. G. Adomey; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality Hi Marcus, I'm not holding brief for the Chairman and/or CEO but since you have sent this to the community, I'm hoping I'm not the only whose curiosity has been stimulated to peak levels. Please share references to this "illegality" you speak of so we are better informed. Regards, Dewole. On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with the discussion on the bylaw? Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. Thank you, Marcus _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.nethttps://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: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sun Nov 13 05:44:57 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:44:57 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <3A067134-B916-49F0-B480-E8A40E3AD7A9@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <3A067134-B916-49F0-B480-E8A40E3AD7A9@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Alan On 11/13/16, 7:05 AM, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > >I think that recusal from voting is important enough to be entrenched in the bylaws. Recusal from participation in discussion is often a good idea, but it?s easy to imagine cases where it would not be a good idea (for example, the conflicted director may be able to answer questions from other directors), so I am not proposing to add that to the bylaws. Though I get your point above, this is a double edged sword where if a member has an interest in an issue there ability to eloquently and passionately discuss and debate the issue is enough to usually sway other members so recurrsal from voting will not help the situation since other members have already been convinced by a conflicted member. Its usually good practice for the member not to participate in the issue at all and at times they are not even in the room. I tend to prefer the option where the conflicted member is not involved at all in the discussion. Regards > >Alan Barrett > > >_______________________________________________ >Community-Discuss mailing list >Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sun Nov 13 05:50:07 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:50:07 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: Hi Alan > >My main goal in the current round of Bylaws changes is to make it very difficult for AFRINIC to be captured by a minority interest. The proposed limits of two Directors per organisation and two Directors per sub-region are more than sufficient to ensure that no one organisation or one sub-region has the majority of votes in the Board. Definitions are very important and I think definition of ?minority interest? is very important. Capture is not only organizational or even regional, we have seen other sorts of capture around a number of entities our entity not excluded, so its vital that we find a solution that cuts across. > >Alan Barrett >_______________________________________________ >Community-Discuss mailing list >Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sun Nov 13 05:56:14 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:56:14 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> Alan I think this can be brought to rest if we get a position from the Afrinic Legal council then subsequent legal discussion would be based on a fixed organisational position. I see this as the quickest route to closure. I believe we need to close these open issues quicker by narrowing down and then exploring the official position. Regards On 11/12/16, 2:04 PM, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >[I changed the subject to match the discussion] > >> On 12 Nov 2016, at 10:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: >> On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: >>> Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, >>> >>> The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: >>> >>> Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with the discussion on the bylaw? >>> >>> Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. >> >> Kindly read https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html > >That message is about a possible conflict between the limit of no more than 5 proxies specified in the Bylaws article 12.12(viii), and the Companies Act. > >I have heard several different legal opinions on this, both first hand and indirectly. My current opinion, which is subject to change if I hear additional legal arguments, is that: > >* Associate Members may not vote, so proxies are irrelevant to them. > >* Proxy limits, if any, apply only to elections, not to votes on resolutions. > >* The limit in the Bylaws article 12.12(viii) does not apply to proxies issued by Registered Members, but does apply to proxies issued by Resource Members. > >* Although the limit in the Bylaws section 12.12(viii) is phrased in terms of proxies carried by a ?member entitled to vote?, the limit applies equally to proxies carried by an individual person who is not a member. > >In other words, the limit applies to proxies that are used during elections, and that are issued by Resource Members, and that are carried either by other members or by individual people who are not members. The limit does not apply to proxies that are issued by Registered Members. The limit does not apply to proxies used during votes that are not elections. > >Again, the above is my current understanding of the situation, but it is subject to change if I receive additional legal opinions. > >Alan Barrett > > >_______________________________________________ >Community-Discuss mailing list >Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sun Nov 13 06:07:14 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:07:14 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <3A067134-B916-49F0-B480-E8A40E3AD7A9@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3C1DD865-9B84-4A49-ADBA-756232CA054B@afrinic.net> > On 13 Nov 2016, at 09:44, Badru Ntege wrote: > Its usually good practice for the member not to participate in the issue at all and at times they are not even in the room. I tend to prefer the option where the conflicted member is not involved at all in the discussion. Yes, that is usually a good idea, but it?s sometimes a bad idea, so it should not be forced in every case. Perhaps the remaining members of the Baord could be given the choice, like this: [15.6 or other new number for new article] A director of the company shall, where he/she has a potential conflict of interest in any matter brought before the Board, disclose such potential conflict to the Board. Said Director shall recuse himself/herself from voting on any such matter before the Board where a conflict exists. The remaining members of the Board may decide that the conflicted Director should also be excluded from discussion of the matter. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sun Nov 13 06:20:24 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:20:24 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> > On 13 Nov 2016, at 09:56, Badru Ntege wrote: > I think this can be brought to rest if we get a position from the Afrinic Legal council then subsequent legal discussion would be based on a fixed organisational position. I have requested a clear statement from the Afrinic legal adviser. However, I am more interested in learning what the members or community would like in the future. Three obvious possibilities are: * Remove the proxy limits; * Keep the proxy limits, but modify the wording of the bylaws to ensure that the bylaws do not conflict with the Companies Act; * Keep the bylaws unchanged, and deal with any legal challenges if they arise. Alan Barrett From benjamin.eshun at gmail.com Sun Nov 13 08:42:13 2016 From: benjamin.eshun at gmail.com (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 08:42:13 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <3C1DD865-9B84-4A49-ADBA-756232CA054B@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <3A067134-B916-49F0-B480-E8A40E3AD7A9@afrinic.net> <3C1DD865-9B84-4A49-ADBA-756232CA054B@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Dear Alan, A good idea is a good idea. What we need to prevent is give the appearance that we are giving undue advantage to certain individuals because they are members of the Board. For a better management of Conflict of Interest (COI) for Directors, there should be included in the by-laws, a mandate for the board to adopt a conflict of interest policy which must define how the Board should handle COI in detail. regards, Benjamin On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > > On 13 Nov 2016, at 09:44, Badru Ntege > wrote: > > Its usually good practice for the member not to participate in the issue > at all and at times they are not even in the room. I tend to prefer the > option where the conflicted member is not involved at all in the discussion. > > Yes, that is usually a good idea, but it?s sometimes a bad idea, so it > should not be forced in every case. Perhaps the remaining members of the > Baord could be given the choice, like this: > > [15.6 or other new number for new article] A director of the company > shall, where he/she has a potential conflict of interest in any matter > brought before the Board, disclose such potential conflict to the Board. > Said Director shall recuse himself/herself from voting on any such matter > before the Board where a conflict exists. The remaining members of the > Board may decide that the conflicted Director should also be excluded from > discussion of the matter. > > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > 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: From vitus at ghana.com Sun Nov 13 09:37:00 2016 From: vitus at ghana.com (Vitus Foli Aborogu) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 09:37:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> > On November 13, 2016 at 4:21 AM Alan Barrett wrote: > > > > On 13 Nov 2016, at 00:49, Vitus Foli Aborogu wrote: > > I think 1 per org, 1 per country and 2 per region is better. > > Diversity, refreshment of expertise and coverage for 54 countries. > > I agree that diversity is important, and I would encourage the members to consider diversity when they elect Directors. Diversity is not the only consideration, and I would also urge the members to consider experience and skill. It may easily happen that multiple good candidates come from the same country or organisation, and the voting members should be free to choose how they balance diversity against other considerations. > > My main goal in the current round of Bylaws changes is to make it very difficult for AFRINIC to be captured by a minority interest. The proposed limits of two Directors per organisation and two Directors per sub-region are more than sufficient to ensure that no one organisation or one sub-region has the majority of votes in the Board. > > Alan Barrett Dear Alan, I got your argument about number of Directors per organisation, country and region. However, the CEO being full director, with 2 directors per country, we may end up with 3 directors from one country. As board quorum is 5 directors, 2 countries can capture the organisation. On the other hand , excluding CEO, 1 per organisation, 1 per country and 2 per region will avoid such scenario. On a different note, the 2 per org, 2 per country and 2 per region, as you suggested, allow one country to have the 2 seat per region. Thank you. - Vitus > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From mje at posix.co.za Sun Nov 13 09:45:32 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 11:45:32 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <3A067134-B916-49F0-B480-E8A40E3AD7A9@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7d5e3da6-f78e-05bf-6fcd-5fba92ea4cbb@posix.co.za> On 13/11/2016 07:44, Badru Ntege wrote: > Alan > > > > > > > > > On 11/13/16, 7:05 AM, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: > >> >> I think that recusal from voting is important enough to be >> entrenched in the bylaws. Recusal from participation in discussion >> is often a good idea, but it?s easy to imagine cases where it would >> not be a good idea (for example, the conflicted director may be >> able to answer questions from other directors), so I am not >> proposing to add that to the bylaws. > > > Though I get your point above, this is a double edged sword where if > a member has an interest in an issue there ability to eloquently and > passionately discuss and debate the issue is enough to usually sway > other members so recurrsal from voting will not help the situation > since other members have already been convinced by a conflicted > member. > > Its usually good practice for the member not to participate in the > issue at all and at times they are not even in the room. I tend to > prefer the option where the conflicted member is not involved at all > in the discussion. I disagree. The conflicted member should be allowed a say - but probably limited to only one occasion - in order to explain their position and why there is conflict. The Member should then remain available to answer any questions after that. I thus concur with Alan. > > Regards > > > > >> >> Alan Barrett >> >> >> _______________________________________________ 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 > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Sun Nov 13 12:31:01 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 15:31:01 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: On 13 Nov 2016 12:38, "Vitus Foli Aborogu" wrote: > > > > > My main goal in the current round of Bylaws changes is to make it very difficult for AFRINIC to be captured by a minority interest. The proposed limits of two Directors per organisation and two Directors per sub-region are more than sufficient to ensure that no one organisation or one sub-region has the majority of votes in the Board. > > 2 directors per organisation is not a good idea. 1 director is per organisation is more than enough. Since the CEO will always come from a certain sub-region and some country, having 2 directors per sub region would always make that region have 3 directors at any given time. Since the CEO is full time director, his country should perhaps only get 1 director at any given time to represent the sub region. The CEO country should never have someone run to represent the non geographic since if elected, the board would end up with 3 directors from a single country that is CEO, subregion and non geo. > > Alan Barrett > > > Dear Alan, > I got your argument about number of Directors per organisation, country and region. However, the CEO being full director, with 2 directors per country, we may end up with 3 directors from one country. As board quorum is 5 directors, 2 countries can capture the organisation. On the other hand , excluding CEO, 1 per organisation, 1 per country and 2 per region will avoid such scenario. > > Yes in support of this less the organisation get captured. 1 per country, 1 per organisatioand 2 per region is rational and also promotes diversity representation. > Thank you. > - Vitus > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sun Nov 13 13:42:27 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:42:27 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: <1E2952CA-6812-4307-AE07-F8650D5C5B7F@afrinic.net> > On 13 Nov 2016, at 16:31, Noah wrote: > 2 directors per organisation is not a good idea. 1 director is per organisation is more than enough. Is there some particular risk that you want to mitigate, or are you simply looking for diversity? If there is a risk, then please let us know how two directors from the same organisation could conspire together to outvote the other directors. If you are merely looking for diversity, then as I said in another message, experience and skill are also important and I believe that the voters are quite capable of making such decisions at election time, without being forced by the bylaws. > Since the CEO will always come from a certain sub-region and some country, having 2 directors per sub region would always make that region have 3 directors at any given time. > > Since the CEO is full time director, his country should perhaps only get 1 director at any given time to represent the sub region. > > The CEO country should never have someone run to represent the non geographic since if elected, the board would end up with 3 directors from a single country that is CEO, subregion and non geo. In my opinion, directors should never ?represent? sub-regions, countries, or organisations; they merely reside in sub-regions or countries, and work for organisations. Once they are appointed or elected, they should act in the best interests of AFRINIC as a whole, not in the narrow interests of their employer, country, or sub-region. The proposed change number 4 will clarify this: 13.5 [changed first sentence] One Director shall be chosen from each of the following six sub-regions of Africa, as indicated below: (i) Northern Africa (seat 1); (ii) Western Africa (seat 2); (iii) Indian Ocean (seat 3); (iv) Central Africa (seat 4); (v) Southern Africa (seat 5); and (vi) Eastern Africa (seat 6). 13.6 [new article to be inserted] Notwithstanding the regional criterion of elections of Directors for seats 1 to 6 (both inclusive) as specified in Article 13.4(i) and 13.5, all Directors so elected, shall exercise their powers in accordance with the Act and always act in good faith and solely in the best interests of the company. Alan Barrett From noah at neo.co.tz Sun Nov 13 15:13:07 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 18:13:07 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <1E2952CA-6812-4307-AE07-F8650D5C5B7F@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> <1E2952CA-6812-4307-AE07-F8650D5C5B7F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 13 Nov 2016 16:44, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > If you are merely looking for diversity, then as I said in another message, experience and skill are also important and I believe that the voters are quite capable of making such decisions at election time, without being forced by the bylaws. > Diversity and inclusiveness... as I dont think we luck experienced and skillful folk in each country or sub-region. > > > In my opinion, directors should never ?represent? sub-regions, countries, or organisations; they merely reside in sub-regions or countries, and work for organisations. Once they are appointed or elected, they should act in the best interests of AFRINIC as a whole, not in the narrow interests of their employer, country, or sub-region. > Obviously but yet the norm is each sub-region, country or organisation will have some folk nominated to represent that constituence during elections. There is no doubt that their fundamental mandate is AFRINICs best interest but diversity is key. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sun Nov 13 15:47:06 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:47:06 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: On 13/11/2016 14:31, Noah wrote: > On 13 Nov 2016 12:38, "Vitus Foli Aborogu" > wrote: >> >> > >> > My main goal in the current round of Bylaws changes is to make it > very difficult for AFRINIC to be captured by a minority interest. The > proposed limits of two Directors per organisation and two Directors per > sub-region are more than sufficient to ensure that no one organisation > or one sub-region has the majority of votes in the Board. >> > > > 2 directors per organisation is not a good idea. 1 director is per > organisation is more than enough. > > Since the CEO will always come from a certain sub-region and some > country, having 2 directors per sub region would always make that > region have 3 directors at any given time. > > Since the CEO is full time director, his country should perhaps only get > 1 director at any given time to represent the sub region. > > The CEO country should never have someone run to represent the non > geographic since if elected, the board would end up with 3 directors > from a single country that is CEO, subregion and non geo. For a moment - I was worried. Then I realised that even though Alan is South African from the Southern African subregion - he lives in Mauritius, part of the Indian Ocean subregion.. Regardless, I think this idea is stupid. The CEO should not be in this count at all. There should not be any "Country limits" - just a maximum of two per subregion and all numbers should exclude the CEO - or it will always be unfair on the AFRINIC host subregion - the Indian Ocean subregion for now. >> > Alan Barrett >> >> >> Dear Alan, >> I got your argument about number of Directors per organisation, > country and region. However, the CEO being full director, with 2 > directors per country, we may end up with 3 directors from one > country. As board quorum is 5 directors, 2 countries can capture the > organisation. On the other hand , excluding CEO, 1 per organisation, 1 > per country and 2 per region will avoid such scenario. >> >> > > Yes in support of this less the organisation get captured. > > 1 per country, 1 per organisatioand 2 per region is rational and also > promotes diversity representation. > >> Thank you. >> - Vitus >> > > Noah > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From mje at posix.co.za Sun Nov 13 15:57:14 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:57:14 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> <1E2952CA-6812-4307-AE07-F8650D5C5B7F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 13/11/2016 17:13, Noah wrote: > On 13 Nov 2016 16:44, "Alan Barrett" > wrote: >> >> >> If you are merely looking for diversity, then as I said in another > message, experience and skill are also important and I believe that the > voters are quite capable of making such decisions at election time, > without being forced by the bylaws. >> > > Diversity and inclusiveness... as I dont think we luck experienced and > skillful folk in each country or sub-region. > >> > >> In my opinion, directors should never ?represent? sub-regions, > countries, or organisations; they merely reside in sub-regions or > countries, and work for organisations. Once they are appointed or > elected, they should act in the best interests of AFRINIC as a whole, > not in the narrow interests of their employer, country, or sub-region. >> > > Obviously but yet the norm is each sub-region, country or organisation > will have some folk nominated to represent that constituence during > elections. > > There is no doubt that their fundamental mandate is AFRINICs best > interest but diversity is key. Another option would be some form of proportional representation - similar to how some governments work - the more members (eligible voters) in a subregion - the more seats they can have from their subregion - ie follow the (income) money. Statistically, subregions with higher numbers of members will have a higher degree of diversity. -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3854 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Sun Nov 13 16:18:26 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:18:26 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: On 13 Nov 2016 18:48, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > > The CEO country should never have someone run to represent the non > > geographic since if elected, the board would end up with 3 directors > > from a single country that is CEO, subregion and non geo. > > For a moment - I was worried. Then I realised that even though Alan is > South African from the Southern African subregion - he lives in > Mauritius, part of the Indian Ocean subregion.. > This is not about Alan. Its obvious the CEO will alway relocate to .mu though he or she would never represent the Indian Ocean subregion. What we need to limit is the number of folk from the same country as the CEO to 1 at any given rotation. > Regardless, I think this idea is stupid. The CEO should not be in this > count at all. > Its valid since the CEO always becomes a full time director of the board. > There should not be any "Country limits" - just a maximum of two per > subregion There should be a country limit of 1 so that per subregion 2 different countries can have the total of 2 folk. Diversity as other countries also have experienced folk to serve not just a few common countries year after year. For East Africa subregion, it would be great to also have experienced folk from Burundi or Rwanda next round just like coutries like Kenya Uganda and Tanzania who have had the opportunity to serve. > and all numbers should exclude the CEO - or it will always be unfair on > the AFRINIC host subregion - the Indian Ocean subregion for now. > That is still open to debate. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Sun Nov 13 16:57:38 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:57:38 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> <1E2952CA-6812-4307-AE07-F8650D5C5B7F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 13 Nov 2016 18:58, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > Another option would be some form of proportional representation - > similar to how some governments work - the more members (eligible > voters) in a subregion - the more seats they can have from their > subregion - ie follow the (income) money. Statistically, subregions with > higher numbers of members will have a higher degree of diversity. > What diversity? Fortunately AFRINIC is not a government afterall this kind of practise would disenfrachise subregions/countries with less members from representation if that is not already the case. In fact I would argue that subregion with say less membership have more representation if we were to ever go down such a road. [1] > -- > Mark James ELKINS - Noah [1] Just because South Africa or Kenya or Nigeria or Egypt or whatever country has a stable and sound economy that can attract more membership does not mean such countries should have more privileges. There are some compeling political and economic reasons why some countries are still playing catchup but their voice should always count. By the way this should never be about income less we end up the way the UN security council is run to the disadvantage of less powerful coutries. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Nov 13 19:01:20 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 19:01:20 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> , Message-ID: Noah, I am trying to understand this. So, which country do you consider me from? South Africa because I hold a South African passport? Kenya because I have lived there for 3 years, am married to a Kenyan and have a child who holds both? Or for the purposes of this am from both? If I am South African - then it means nothing that I don't live there anymore and that's bizarre, if I am considered Kenyan, then by the same token Alan would be Mauritian at the moment, and one of the current board members would be Singaporean. Who gives a damn where people are from, the board is there to run a company and ensure it remains a solid on going concern with decent corporate governance. That makes it about skills, not where someone is from. Furthermore - I honestly see this whole thing as more fearmongering with no substantiation or evidence to support it. What exactly are these people going to collude on? What is the motivation you prescribe for this mythical organizational capture people seem to believe would happen? To what end and what substantiation is there for these fears? Or are we all just playing the Donald trump card and stirring fear and paranoia for the sake of it? Andrew ________________________________ From: Noah Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 7:18:26 PM To: Mark Elkins Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes On 13 Nov 2016 18:48, "Mark Elkins" > wrote: > > > > The CEO country should never have someone run to represent the non > > geographic since if elected, the board would end up with 3 directors > > from a single country that is CEO, subregion and non geo. > > For a moment - I was worried. Then I realised that even though Alan is > South African from the Southern African subregion - he lives in > Mauritius, part of the Indian Ocean subregion.. > This is not about Alan. Its obvious the CEO will alway relocate to .mu though he or she would never represent the Indian Ocean subregion. What we need to limit is the number of folk from the same country as the CEO to 1 at any given rotation. > Regardless, I think this idea is stupid. The CEO should not be in this > count at all. > Its valid since the CEO always becomes a full time director of the board. > There should not be any "Country limits" - just a maximum of two per > subregion There should be a country limit of 1 so that per subregion 2 different countries can have the total of 2 folk. Diversity as other countries also have experienced folk to serve not just a few common countries year after year. For East Africa subregion, it would be great to also have experienced folk from Burundi or Rwanda next round just like coutries like Kenya Uganda and Tanzania who have had the opportunity to serve. > and all numbers should exclude the CEO - or it will always be unfair on > the AFRINIC host subregion - the Indian Ocean subregion for now. > That is still open to debate. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Sun Nov 13 19:43:02 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 22:43:02 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Andrew Alston < Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > Noah, I am trying to understand this. > > 1 person per country they are domicile at the time of running to represent the corresponding sub-region. Nothing to do with individuals. > Or are we all just playing the Donald trump card and stirring fear and > paranoia for the sake of it? > > Sub region diversity so people from different countries can also bring the experience and serve AFRINIC. [1] > Andrew > > Noah [1] Donald Trump cards are less of my concerns if you asked me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Nov 13 23:09:51 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 23:09:51 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: LOL, Ok, let?s think this through again for a second. It?s ok that someone gets elected because he lives in a particular place to ?represent? that region, despite the fact that the other suggested bylaws attempt to ensure that elected directors always act in the good of all of AfriNIC and the concept of ?represent a region? ceases? And putting that aside, you also have a belief that because someone was living in place X when they were elected that they actually are representative of that region? Come on man, if you want regional representation, then do it properly, ensure that only those nominated by people in a region can stand for that region seat. That way, the region truly has a say in who represents them. Rather than the current status quo, when powerful interests in one region, can pick a puppet in another region, nominate him and then use their voting power to elect him. Which ensures that there is NO regional representation of the region in which the puppet resides. Look, I don?t really care where people live, because I don?t believe it has ANY bearing on who is being represented and what interests are being represented. If you want to fix THAT problem, you need to fix the problem of who gets to choose the representation from a particular region, and the only way to do that is to impose limitations on who can nominate for a particular region. Something I proposed on this list and had no comments to. In summary: If we?re serious about saying directors represent ALL of AfriNIC ? all of this is a moot point. If we still want ?regional? representation ? then do it properly and ensure that the regions who are being represented are the ones that get to choose their representation ? and stop caring about WHO that person is and WHERE that person is ? but about who gets to choose them. Anything else is, in my view, not an attempt to fix the representation problem, but rather an attempt to follow a completely different agenda. Andrew From: Noah [mailto:noah at neo.co.tz] Sent: 13 November 2016 22:43 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Mark Elkins ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Noah, I am trying to understand this. 1 person per country they are domicile at the time of running to represent the corresponding sub-region. Nothing to do with individuals. Or are we all just playing the Donald trump card and stirring fear and paranoia for the sake of it? Sub region diversity so people from different countries can also bring the experience and serve AFRINIC. [1] Andrew Noah [1] Donald Trump cards are less of my concerns if you asked me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ali at hussein.me.ke Mon Nov 14 02:06:24 2016 From: ali at hussein.me.ke (Ali Hussein) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 05:06:24 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: <15A83C1A-C48B-47DE-BE8B-5CC1CD8F4586@hussein.me.ke> Hi all Coming late into this interesting discussion. I think whatever we finally decide to go with we must ensure that the principles of corporate governance win the day. 1. Irrespective of how we decide in terms of 'regional balance' the region must have a say on who represents them otherwise the very concept of regional balance becomes a sham. 2. That once elected directors MUST put Afrinic first and act in the best interest of the organization. One of the tools to do this is for directors to declare interest before any board meeting and for other members to then make an informed decision on how to proceed. The second point might seem to be in conflict with the first but it's actually not because Afrinic's health should be the concern of every constituent of Afrinic. Ali Hussein Principal Hussein & Associates +254 0713 601113 Twitter: @AliHKassim Skype: abu-jomo LinkedIn: http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim "Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought". ~ Albert Szent-Gy?rgyi Sent from my iPad > On 14 Nov 2016, at 2:09 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > LOL, > > Ok, let?s think this through again for a second. > > It?s ok that someone gets elected because he lives in a particular place to ?represent? that region, despite the fact that the other suggested bylaws attempt to ensure that elected directors always act in the good of all of AfriNIC and the concept of ?represent a region? ceases? > > And putting that aside, you also have a belief that because someone was living in place X when they were elected that they actually are representative of that region? Come on man, if you want regional representation, then do it properly, ensure that only those nominated by people in a region can stand for that region seat. That way, the region truly has a say in who represents them. Rather than the current status quo, when powerful interests in one region, can pick a puppet in another region, nominate him and then use their voting power to elect him. Which ensures that there is NO regional representation of the region in which the puppet resides. > > Look, I don?t really care where people live, because I don?t believe it has ANY bearing on who is being represented and what interests are being represented. If you want to fix THAT problem, you need to fix the problem of who gets to choose the representation from a particular region, and the only way to do that is to impose limitations on who can nominate for a particular region. Something I proposed on this list and had no comments to. > > In summary: > > If we?re serious about saying directors represent ALL of AfriNIC ? all of this is a moot point. > > If we still want ?regional? representation ? then do it properly and ensure that the regions who are being represented are the ones that get to choose their representation ? and stop caring about WHO that person is and WHERE that person is ? but about who gets to choose them. > > Anything else is, in my view, not an attempt to fix the representation problem, but rather an attempt to follow a completely different agenda. > > Andrew > > > > > From: Noah [mailto:noah at neo.co.tz] > Sent: 13 November 2016 22:43 > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Mark Elkins ; General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes > > > > On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Noah, I am trying to understand this. > > > 1 person per country they are domicile at the time of running to represent the corresponding sub-region. Nothing to do with individuals. > > Or are we all just playing the Donald trump card and stirring fear and paranoia for the sake of it? > > > Sub region diversity so people from different countries can also bring the experience and serve AFRINIC. [1] > > Andrew > > > Noah > > [1] Donald Trump cards are less of my concerns if you asked me. > _______________________________________________ > 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: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Mon Nov 14 03:23:07 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:23:07 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: <0D76AA3A-424F-4CFF-8A8D-04817C60E0DD@nftconsult.com> Andrew On 11/13/16, 10:01 PM, "Andrew Alston" wrote: Noah, I am trying to understand this. So, which country do you consider me from? South Africa because I hold a South African passport? Kenya because I have lived there for 3 years, am married to a Kenyan and have a child who holds both? Or for the purposes of this am from both? I think this is elementary your domicile location does not negate your origin. You are south African. Marriage or family does not change where you come from. If I am South African - then it means nothing that I don't live there anymore and that's bizarre, if I am considered Kenyan, then by the same token Alan would be Mauritian at the moment, and one of the current board members would be Singaporean. We need to keep the CEO out of this discussion. Who gives a damn where people are from, the board is there to run a company and ensure it remains a solid on going concern with decent corporate governance. That makes it about skills, not where someone is from. I think the above statement could have been delivered with more decorum. Furthermore - I honestly see this whole thing as more fearmongering with no substantiation or evidence to support it. What exactly are these people going to collude on? What is the motivation you prescribe for this mythical organizational capture people seem to believe would happen? To what end and what substantiation is there for these fears? If the fears exist in some people lets respect that and seek to understand exactly what the fear is and then logically and respectively handle the fear. What matters most is that all members feel represented equitably. Or are we all just playing the Donald trump card and stirring fear and paranoia for the sake of it? I believe this card has been played enough times in AfriNic and is one of the reasons we are discussing these issues and many more which do little to ensure the mission of AfriNic. But that?s dialogue for another day. Regards Andrew From: Noah Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2016 7:18:26 PM To: Mark Elkins Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes On 13 Nov 2016 18:48, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > > The CEO country should never have someone run to represent the non > > geographic since if elected, the board would end up with 3 directors > > from a single country that is CEO, subregion and non geo. > > For a moment - I was worried. Then I realised that even though Alan is > South African from the Southern African subregion - he lives in > Mauritius, part of the Indian Ocean subregion.. > This is not about Alan. Its obvious the CEO will alway relocate to .mu though he or she would never represent the Indian Ocean subregion. What we need to limit is the number of folk from the same country as the CEO to 1 at any given rotation. > Regardless, I think this idea is stupid. The CEO should not be in this > count at all. > Its valid since the CEO always becomes a full time director of the board. > There should not be any "Country limits" - just a maximum of two per > subregion There should be a country limit of 1 so that per subregion 2 different countries can have the total of 2 folk. Diversity as other countries also have experienced folk to serve not just a few common countries year after year. For East Africa subregion, it would be great to also have experienced folk from Burundi or Rwanda next round just like coutries like Kenya Uganda and Tanzania who have had the opportunity to serve. > and all numbers should exclude the CEO - or it will always be unfair on > the AFRINIC host subregion - the Indian Ocean subregion for now. > That is still open to debate. Noah _______________________________________________ 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: From noah at neo.co.tz Mon Nov 14 06:39:05 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:39:05 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: On 14 Nov 2016 02:09, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > > It?s ok that someone gets elected because he lives in a particular place to ?represent? that region, despite the fact that the other suggested bylaws attempt to ensure that elected directors always act in the good of all of AfriNIC and the concept of ?represent a region? ceases? > > The fundamental idea is to have different folk from different countries per subregion elected to the board. Essentially, the mandate of those elected is to bring onboard their vast experience so that they can serve AFRINIC and ensure that she continues with her mandate by ensuring there is proper governance and the organisation is sustainable at the end of the day. > > And putting that aside, you also have a belief that because someone was living in place X when they were elected that they actually are representative of that region? Come on man, if you want regional representation, then do it properly, ensure that only those nominated by people in a region can stand for that region seat. That way, the region truly has a say in who represents them. Rather than the current status quo, when powerful interests in one region, can pick a puppet in another region, nominate him and then use their voting power to elect him. Which ensures that there is NO regional representation of the region in which the puppet resides. > Puppet???? I am sorry you see it this way but I doubt all the former directors where anyones or any subregions puppet as they all played their parts which is why AFRINIC is still here today through the ups and downs. But if there is evidence of this please share it openly. Anyways you still dont get me. Mine is not about swapping folk for the sake of regional representation. Mine is about refreshing the board with different experiences while championing a more diverse representation per sub region. The electorate ultimately decides. 1 per country, 2 per subregion. > > > > If we?re serious about saying directors represent ALL of AfriNIC ? all of this is a moot point. > Essentially that has always been the ultimate goal. > > Andrew Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Nov 14 06:45:54 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:45:54 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> <1E2952CA-6812-4307-AE07-F8650D5C5B7F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <8E5C3EE9-AA3E-418A-B553-F900A7B02D34@afrinic.net> > On 13 Nov 2016, at 19:13, Noah wrote: >> If you are merely looking for diversity, then as I said in another message, experience and skill are also important and I believe that the voters are quite capable of making such decisions at election time, without being forced by the bylaws. > > Diversity and inclusiveness... as I dont think we luck experienced and skillful folk in each country or sub-region. Thanks, Noah. I do believe that it will usually be a good idea for the Directors to come from a diverse set of countries, so I intend to ask the Board to put that as a guideline for the next NomCom. I will also ask the Board to ask the NomCom to consider other aspects of diversity. I cannot see a plausible risk of capture from allowing more than one director per country, and I do not want to add unnecessary restrictions to the chiuces made by future voters, so I do not intend to propose that as a rule for the Bylaws. Alan Barrett From saul at enetworks.co.za Mon Nov 14 07:33:23 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:33:23 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <8CB67711-06EF-47CD-8607-636D6FC16FE5@enetworks.co.za> Personally i would like to focus on removing the need to have proxies in the first place. We need to be able to easily vote for elections, resolutions and policy online. Open the voting a week before and keep it open x days after to enable people who are away to catchup and vote. This would resolve the need for people to carry proxies and thus the possibility to sway results Saul Sent from my iPhone > On 13 Nov 2016, at 08:20, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 13 Nov 2016, at 09:56, Badru Ntege wrote: >> I think this can be brought to rest if we get a position from the Afrinic Legal council then subsequent legal discussion would be based on a fixed organisational position. > > I have requested a clear statement from the Afrinic legal adviser. > > However, I am more interested in learning what the members or community would like in the future. > > Three obvious possibilities are: > > * Remove the proxy limits; > > * Keep the proxy limits, but modify the wording of the bylaws to ensure that the bylaws do not conflict with the Companies Act; > > * Keep the bylaws unchanged, and deal with any legal challenges if they arise. > > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Nov 14 07:48:30 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 11:48:30 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <8CB67711-06EF-47CD-8607-636D6FC16FE5@enetworks.co.za> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> <8CB67711-06EF-47CD-8607-636D6FC16FE5@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <0E690DCF-B587-429B-A420-479B8CDFFFD8@afrinic.net> > On 14 Nov 2016, at 11:33, Saul Stein wrote: > > Personally i would like to focus on removing the need to have proxies in the first place. > > We need to be able to easily vote for elections, resolutions and policy online. > Open the voting a week before and keep it open x days after to enable people who are away to catchup and vote. > > This would resolve the need for people to carry proxies and thus the possibility to sway results I agree that electronic voting removes the need for proxies. I think it would be good if everybody voted electronically, and nobody asked for a paper ballot or a proxy. Unfortunately, I think that we are legally required to allow voting via proxy. We already encourage electronic voting, we open electronic voting some time before the meeting, and we try to make electronic voting easy. I don?t understand how we could keep electronic voting open for a few days after the meeting. How could we count the votes and announce the result if voting is still open? Alan Barrett From dewole at tinitop.com Mon Nov 14 09:17:19 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:17:19 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <0E690DCF-B587-429B-A420-479B8CDFFFD8@afrinic.net> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> <8CB67711-06EF-47CD-8607-636D6FC16FE5@enetworks.co.za> <0E690DCF-B587-429B-A420-479B8CDFFFD8@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <6c94883f-1aaa-6bb8-e449-59780c4ea5b6@tinitop.com> Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed (where possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them. While last-minute deciders may desire to keep e-voting open for a while longer than onsite paper ballots (possibly to ensure that they place their money on a horse that's still in the race), I don't think the Mauritius Companies Act allows that at the moment. My (possibly inaccurate) interpretation is that our electronic votes fall within the provision for "postal votes" which are to be tallied at the meeting and annexed to the minutes of the meeting. I believe the maximum that can be allowed is to do the paper ballots earlier in the day and tally the electronic votes a few hours after (but before the close of the meeting). Dewole. On 14/11/2016 08:48, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 11:33, Saul Stein wrote: >> >> Personally i would like to focus on removing the need to have proxies in the first place. >> >> We need to be able to easily vote for elections, resolutions and policy online. >> Open the voting a week before and keep it open x days after to enable people who are away to catchup and vote. >> >> This would resolve the need for people to carry proxies and thus the possibility to sway results > I agree that electronic voting removes the need for proxies. I think it would be good if everybody voted electronically, and nobody asked for a paper ballot or a proxy. Unfortunately, I think that we are legally required to allow voting via proxy. > > We already encourage electronic voting, we open electronic voting some time before the meeting, and we try to make electronic voting easy. > > I don?t understand how we could keep electronic voting open for a few days after the meeting. How could we count the votes and announce the result if voting is still open? > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Nov 14 10:54:10 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 14:54:10 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <6c94883f-1aaa-6bb8-e449-59780c4ea5b6@tinitop.com> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> <8CB67711-06EF-47CD-8607-636D6FC16FE5@enetworks.co.za> <0E690DCF-B587-429B-A420-479B8CDFFFD8@afrinic.net> <6c94883f-1aaa-6bb8-e449-59780c4ea5b6@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <1CB894E8-B787-43BA-B1ED-DAE44D86B04A@afrinic.net> > On 14 Nov 2016, at 13:17, Dewole Ajao wrote: > > Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed (where possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them. I know that, in the past, the need to get a BOKI certificate was perceived as a barrier to electronic voting. That requirement has been removed. > While last-minute deciders may desire to keep e-voting open for a while longer than onsite paper ballots (possibly to ensure that they place their money on a horse that's still in the race), I don't think the Mauritius Companies Act allows that at the moment. My (possibly inaccurate) interpretation is that our electronic votes fall within the provision for "postal votes" which are to be tallied at the meeting and annexed to the minutes of the meeting. I believe the maximum that can be allowed is to do the paper ballots earlier in the day and tally the electronic votes a few hours after (but before the close of the meeting). My current plan is to open e-voting about a week before the meeting, and to close e-voting at the same time as on-site voting is closed. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Nov 14 11:22:28 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:22:28 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <1CB894E8-B787-43BA-B1ED-DAE44D86B04A@afrinic.net> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> <8CB67711-06EF-47CD-8607-636D6FC16FE5@enetworks.co.za> <0E690DCF-B587-429B-A420-479B8CDFFFD8@afrinic.net> <6c94883f-1aaa-6bb8-e449-59780c4ea5b6@tinitop.com> <1CB894E8-B787-43BA-B1ED-DAE44D86B04A@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <9FC7DA87-CF3D-4DA6-961F-3D6B1E8D0170@afrinic.net> > On 14 Nov 2016, at 14:54, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 13:17, Dewole Ajao wrote: >> >> Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed (where possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them. > > I know that, in the past, the need to get a BOKI certificate was perceived as a barrier to electronic voting. That requirement has been removed. Sorry, typo for BPKI certificate Alan Barrett From christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd Mon Nov 14 11:46:59 2016 From: christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd (Christian Bope) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 19:46:59 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <524D7652-2445-4126-B615-9DF146A4C946@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <7FC397EC-0633-4209-93D8-A343F086544E@delong.com> <524D7652-2445-4126-B615-9DF146A4C946@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Dear CEO. Please find my comment in-line. [Speaking on my own capacity] 2016-11-12 16:18 GMT+08:00 Alan Barrett : > > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 11:17, abel ELITCHA wrote: > > On item{6}, > > You propose two (2) consecutive terms and one term break. Nevertheless, > the community has proposed a one term break after one term on office > before being eligible for re-election. > > I am aware that one or two people have suggested a limit of one term (3 > years). Others have suggested no limit at all. In my opinion, a limit of > 3 years is much too short, and I will not propose a bylaws change to > introduce such a short limit. > > > Also, if any change adopted to the terms in the bylaws, when will it > take effect? Will the current directors be affected? > > Yes, bylaws changes take effect immediately. > > > One more point, did the consecutive terms include terms as alternate > Director or Full Director as described in the current Bylaws? > > We no longer have alternate directors, but I think the question is: What > happens to somebody who previously served a term as an alternate Director > under the previous bylaws, and is now serving a term as a Director under > the current bylaws, without a break in between the two terms? Does that > count as two consecutive terms for the purposes of any term limit? I don?t > know the answer. > Following this discussion, I would like to propose to add this section on item 13.7 13(i) The consecutive terms served by the current Board members under old bylaws are recognized by the new bylaws as terms served. Regards, Bope > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > 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: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Nov 14 12:53:34 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:53:34 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification In-Reply-To: References: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> <6ed8a2cf-1f71-c166-78e7-4348b3c237a9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8E25D4BF-5035-419C-A234-4459FDAE53D6@afrinic.net> > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:53, Noah wrote: > Did the BoD ever meet/seat in October and where the minutes of that meeting approved. > > I went here http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bod/meeting/2016 so that I can read but I see nothing. Hi Noah, The minutes of that meeting are published at . Alan Barrett From noah at neo.co.tz Mon Nov 14 13:11:38 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 16:11:38 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification In-Reply-To: <8E25D4BF-5035-419C-A234-4459FDAE53D6@afrinic.net> References: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> <6ed8a2cf-1f71-c166-78e7-4348b3c237a9@gmail.com> <8E25D4BF-5035-419C-A234-4459FDAE53D6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Alan, Thank you. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:53, Noah wrote: > > Did the BoD ever meet/seat in October and where the minutes of that > meeting approved. > > > > I went here http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bod/meeting/2016 so that I > can read but I see nothing. > > Hi Noah, > > The minutes of that meeting are published at < > http://www.afrinic.net/about/bod/meeting/2016/1937-20160810>. > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- *./noah* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Mon Nov 14 13:54:06 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 15:54:06 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <0E690DCF-B587-429B-A420-479B8CDFFFD8@afrinic.net> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> <8CB67711-06EF-47CD-8607-636D6FC16FE5@enetworks.co.za> <0E690DCF-B587-429B-A420-479B8CDFFFD8@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <224301d23e7e$90983020$b1c89060$@enetworks.co.za> >I don?t understand how we could keep electronic voting open for a few days >after the meeting. How could we count the votes and announce the result if >voting is still >open? Right, wasn't thinking. Had more the PDP stuff in my mind, but it wouldn't work. From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 14 14:23:05 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:23:05 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Message-ID: That wasn't an issue of illegality of AfriNIC. The issue was whether or not the limit on the number of proxies carried by a single member would survive a legal challenge. The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems that the companies act requires proxies. Therefore even though it seems illogical to maintain proxies in the face of electronic voting, until such time as the law catches up with technology, proxies must be accepted. One person suggested that if we don't like this, AfriNIC could go jurisdiction shopping. That's true, but in my experience, every jurisdiction has its trade offs and I believe the proxy requirement in MU law is not enough of a reason to undertake such an exercise. Indeed, I feel that there should be no limits on the number of members who can appoint a particular person to be their proxy. I believe the argument about "vote buying" is specious because in reality, proxy limitation does nothing to reduce it. If you are buying votes, it isn't any harder to get them delivered by multiple proxies than by one. Further, since board members are not significantly compensated for their role, I fail to see the economic value in attempting to buy an AfriNIC election. Owen > On Nov 11, 2016, at 22:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: > > Hi Dewole, > > Kindly read https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html > > Thanks > > > Marcus > > > > From: Dewole Ajao > Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 2:58:33 PM > To: Marcus K. G. Adomey; General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality > > Hi Marcus, > > I'm not holding brief for the Chairman and/or CEO but since you have sent this to the community, I'm hoping I'm not the only whose curiosity has been stimulated to peak levels. Please share references to this "illegality" you speak of so we are better informed. > > Regards, > Dewole. > >> On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: >> Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, >> >> The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: >> >> Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with the discussion on the bylaw? >> >> Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 14 14:33:33 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:33:33 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <7FC397EC-0633-4209-93D8-A343F086544E@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Nov 11, 2016, at 22:43, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:18, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Item 4, I propose changing the text in 13.5 from: >> >> ?13.5 Each of the following six sub-regions of Africa shall be represented by one director as indicated below:? >> (which I think is incongruous with the new intent) >> >> to: >> >> ?13.5 One director shall be chosen from each of the following six sub-regions of Africa:? >> >> There is probably an even better way to say this, but I think it is important to convey that the directors are >> chosen to be from the sub-regions in question, but not chosen to represent their specific sub-region. > > I think I like that. Thank you. It removes the idea that Directors ?represent? sub-regions, while remaining vague about whether they have to reside in the sub-region and what happens if they move. > > 13.5 [changed first sentence] One Director shall be chosen from each of the following six sub-regions of Africa, as indicated below: > (i) Northern Africa (seat 1); > (ii) Western Africa (seat 2); > (iii) Indian Ocean (seat 3); > (iv) Central Africa (seat 4); > (v) Southern Africa (seat 5); and > (vi) Eastern Africa (seat 6). > > 13.6 [new article to be inserted] Notwithstanding the regional criterion of elections of Directors for seats 1 to 6 (both inclusive) as specified in Article 13.4(i) and 13.5, all Directors so elected, shall exercise their powers in accordance with the Act and always act in good faith and solely in the best interests of the company. > > 13.7 [new number, with no change from previous text] Each Director elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this Constitution shall hold office for a term of three years, which term of office shall expire on the date of the Annual General Members? Meeting held on or around the third anniversary of the date of appointment of such Elected Director. Subject to Article [new number for what used to be 13.6], such Director shall be eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of Office. > This looks good to me. >> Notwithstanding my continued opposition to Item 6, I would suggest that rather than ?such Director is not >> eligible for re-election? perhaps the phrase ?said person is ineligible to run for or hold any seat on the Board? >> may be a better way to state the intent. > > Thnk you. I like parts of that, but I think it prevents an ex-Director from becoming CEO (who also has a seat on the Board), so I restricted it to the elected seats. Good catch. Indeed that would have been an unintended consequence. > > I now have the following text: > > [13.7 as new number for what used to be the second paragraph of 13.5] > Each Director elected under Articles 13.4(i) and 13.4(ii) of this Constitution shall hold office for a term of three years, which term of office shall expire on the date of the Annual General Members? Meeting held on or about the third anniversary of the date of appointment of such elected Director. Subject to Article [13.8 or other new number for what used to be 13.6], and subject to the term limits in this Article, such Director shall be eligible for re-election on the expiry of his term of office. No such Director shall serve more than two consecutive terms of office. After a person completes two consecutive terms of office as such a Director, there shall be a three-year period during which such person is not eligible to be elected or appointed to any of the seats referred to in Articles 13.4(i) or 13.4(ii). > This looks good to me. Thanks. Owen > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 14 14:42:01 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:42:01 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> > On Nov 12, 2016, at 02:52, Christian Bope wrote: > > On 12 Nov 2016 6:24 p.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > > > > On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:02, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text. One of the difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in the Bylaws. > > >> > > >> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a policy is rejected (not endorsed). Here?s suggested text: > > >> > > >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board: > > >> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at the next public policy meeting. > > >> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid. > > > > > > How about this: > > > > > > 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: > > > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public policy meeting. > > > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as directed by the Board. > > > > > > Would that work? > > > > Sorry, no, that doesn?t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG chair or a rough consensus process. The Bylaws say that there must be a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works. The concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new version of the PDP. It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on something that can be changed outside the Bylaws. > I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording is flawed. How about: Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the board shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP or by the board under this process. In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. ---- Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP? Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Nov 14 14:45:32 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:45:32 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies In-Reply-To: <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <0268FFBC-F06C-4CDC-8C52-CFB6589B83EC@afrinic.net> <74BC6CA8-705C-4B38-812D-AE9A30DB921C@nftconsult.com> <077FD24B-4796-418E-9894-4FE3A368B3A5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <9B5C0160-70BC-42BF-A37F-56F2E40F07F3@afrinic.net> > On 13 Nov 2016, at 10:20, Alan Barrett wrote: > > Three obvious possibilities are: > > * Remove the proxy limits; > > * Keep the proxy limits, but modify the wording of the bylaws to ensure that the bylaws do not conflict with the Companies Act; > > * Keep the bylaws unchanged, and deal with any legal challenges if they arise. I don?t know what if any bylaws changes would pass, so I think I?ll make the following three proposals (18, 19, 20) and see which, if any, pass: 18. Remove the limit of five proxies per person. Delete Article 12.12(viii). Re-number subsequent sub-articles as appropriate. Text to be deleted: 12.12(viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election; 19. Remove the restriction that a candidate cannot carry any proxies. Delete Article 12.12(ix). Text to be deleted: 12.12(ix) No Candidate to the election of Director of the Company shall act as proxy for any member during such an election. 20. Clarify when the proxy limit does or does not apply. If proposal 18 above is passed (removal of the proxy limit), then this proposal will be ignored. If proposal 18 above fails, then modify Article 12.12(viii) as follows, to conform to the common understanding that proxies issued by or on behalf of Registered Members are not limited, and proxies issued by or on behalf of Resource Members are limited, even if the person carrying the proxy is not a member. Change from: 12.12(viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election; Change to: 12.12(viii) During an election held by the Company, no person shall carry proxies on behalf of more than five (5) Resource Members; Alan Barrett From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 14 14:47:07 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:47:07 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> Message-ID: <3B0973C4-8C30-4E15-8E1B-C8A91C24A334@delong.com> I disagree. If a conflicted member has fully disclosed the conflict to the board, I believe they are capable of weighing this properly in considering his argument. Let us respect the board that we have elected and not treat them like children here. Owen > On Nov 12, 2016, at 21:50, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Hi Alan > > > > > > >> >> My main goal in the current round of Bylaws changes is to make it very difficult for AFRINIC to be captured by a minority interest. The proposed limits of two Directors per organisation and two Directors per sub-region are more than sufficient to ensure that no one organisation or one sub-region has the majority of votes in the Board. > > Definitions are very important and I think definition of ?minority interest? is very important. Capture is not only organizational or even regional, we have seen other sorts of capture around a number of entities our entity not excluded, so its vital that we find a solution that cuts across. > > > >> >> Alan Barrett >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Nov 14 14:50:34 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:50:34 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> Message-ID: <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> > On 14 Nov 2016, at 18:42, Owen DeLong wrote: >> > > How about this: >> > > >> > > 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: >> > > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public policy meeting. >> > > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as directed by the Board. >> > > >> > > Would that work? >> > >> > Sorry, no, that doesn?t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG chair or a rough consensus process. The Bylaws say that there must be a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works. The concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new version of the PDP. It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on something that can be changed outside the Bylaws. >> > > I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording is flawed. > > How about: > > Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the board shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP or by the board under this process. > > In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. > > ---- > > Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP? Yes, I think that works, but the notice of meeting needs to be sent tomorrow, with final text for all proposed changes to the bylaws, and I am not comfortable making such a change without time for comments from others. It can always be proposed in the future. Alan Barrett From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 14 14:56:03 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:56:03 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <4102E18B-639A-42FB-A536-38DFFE865BB3@afrinic.net> <411595868.537.1478983787021@webmail.ghana.com> <846353890.8720.1479029820749@webmail.ghana.com> <1E2952CA-6812-4307-AE07-F8650D5C5B7F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On Nov 13, 2016, at 07:57, Mark Elkins wrote: > > > Another option would be some form of proportional representation - > similar to how some governments work - the more members (eligible > voters) in a subregion - the more seats they can have from their > subregion - ie follow the (income) money. Statistically, subregions with > higher numbers of members will have a higher degree of diversity. > > Please, let us not add gerrymandering to the already overcomplicated electoral process for the AfriNIC board. Owen From aalain at trstech.net Mon Nov 14 16:52:26 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:52:26 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Message-ID: > On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > That wasn't an issue of illegality of AfriNIC. > The issue was whether or not the limit on the number of proxies carried by a single member would survive a legal challenge. Yes. This discussion went into this as some argued that setting the limit to 5 per person violate the act and so AFRINIC not operating lawfully. > > The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems that the companies act requires proxies. ? And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC members(Registered Members). As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and zero proxy per candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and "Resources Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the elections process. As the changes discussed here are about improving accountability, encouraging participation through all means should be encouraged instead of allowing unlimited proxies. ?Alain > Therefore even though it seems illogical to maintain proxies in the face of electronic voting, until such time as the law catches up with technology, proxies must be accepted. > > One person suggested that if we don't like this, AfriNIC could go jurisdiction shopping. That's true, but in my experience, every jurisdiction has its trade offs and I believe the proxy requirement in MU law is not enough of a reason to undertake such an exercise. > > Indeed, I feel that there should be no limits on the number of members who can appoint a particular person to be their proxy. I believe the argument about "vote buying" is specious because in reality, proxy limitation does nothing to reduce it. If you are buying votes, it isn't any harder to get them delivered by multiple proxies than by one. > > Further, since board members are not significantly compensated for their role, I fail to see the economic value in attempting to buy an AfriNIC election. > > Owen > > > On Nov 11, 2016, at 22:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey > wrote: > >> Hi Dewole, >> >> Kindly read https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-October/000863.html >> >> Thanks >> >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> From: Dewole Ajao > >> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 2:58:33 PM >> To: Marcus K. G. Adomey; General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality >> >> Hi Marcus, >> >> I'm not holding brief for the Chairman and/or CEO but since you have sent this to the community, I'm hoping I'm not the only whose curiosity has been stimulated to peak levels. Please share references to this "illegality" you speak of so we are better informed. >> >> Regards, >> Dewole. >> >> On 11/11/2016 15:47, Marcus K. G. Adomey wrote: >>> Dear Chairman and CEO of AfriNIC, >>> >>> The discussion on accountability on this list led to the issue of the illegality of AfriNIC. At this stage of the affairs of AfriNIC, we are about to adopt changes to the bylaws. My question is: >>> >>> Has the issue of AfriNIC illegality been addressed before proceeding with the discussion on the bylaw? >>> >>> Have I missed a something? If so forgive me. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From aalain at trstech.net Mon Nov 14 16:58:03 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:58:03 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 18:42, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>>> How about this: >>>>> >>>>> 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: >>>>> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article 11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next public policy meeting. >>>>> (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put in force as directed by the Board. >>>>> >>>>> Would that work? >>>> >>>> Sorry, no, that doesn?t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a PDWG chair or a rough consensus process. The Bylaws say that there must be a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works. The concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough) consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new version of the PDP. It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on something that can be changed outside the Bylaws. >>> >> >> I see. In that case, I think the concept remains sound, but that the wording is flawed. >> >> How about: >> >> Any such policy instantiated by the board shall be subject to review through the PDP at the next meeting. Such review shall be treated in the PDP as a proposal to remove the changes enacted by the board. Unless the proposal to remove the changes is adopted through the PDP, the changes enacted by the board shall remain in force until later appealed or amended through the PDP or by the board under this process. >> >> In any case, actions taken under the policy in question between the time instantiated by the board and the review under the PDP shall remain valid. >> >> ---- >> >> Does this provide a way of codifying my idea which is compatible with the existing structure and interrelation of bylaws and PDP? > > Yes, I think that works, but the notice of meeting needs to be sent tomorrow, with final text for all proposed changes to the bylaws, and I am not comfortable making such a change without time for comments from others. It can always be proposed in the future. i am still convinced this should be a matter of PDP, and we should discuss this in that regard. I will like to see the topic in the agenda for next PDPWG meeting. ?Alain > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Mon Nov 14 17:00:57 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 20:00:57 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:52 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote: > As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and zero proxy per > candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and "Resources > Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the > elections process. As the changes discussed here are about improving > accountability, encouraging participation through all means should be > encouraged instead of allowing unlimited proxies. You don't want to make decision not compatible with the company act. That decision will be not be legally binding at any time and is effectively null and void even if you are the community, members, board or whatever. . From owen at delong.com Mon Nov 14 18:19:54 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 10:19:54 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <13E2C8DF-A7B0-4667-8116-C28A5EDB6479@delong.com> >> The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems that the companies act requires proxies. > > ? And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC members(Registered Members). We being who, exactly? Because IIRC, AfriNIC legal counsel disagreed. > As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and zero proxy per candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and "Resources Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the elections process. As the changes discussed here are about improving accountability, encouraging participation through all means should be encouraged instead of allowing unlimited proxies. I would argue it was made to alter some perceived issues, which I am not convinced were actual issues. I am not convinced that unlimited proxies discourage participation and would, in fact, argue that limiting people?s choice in how they appoint proxies on their behalf may well discourage participation. However, based on your assertions I decided to look into the companies act and see what it actually says. As near as I can tell, the relevant sections are Part V, Subpart IV, sections 128 through 130 which read: > 128. Right to demand a poll. > > (1) Any provision in the articles shall be void in so far as it would have the effect - > > (a) of excluding the right to demand a poll at a general meeting on any question or matter other than the election of the chairman of the meeting or the adjournment of the meeting; > > (b) of making ineffective a demand for a poll on any question or matter other than the election of the chairman of the meeting or the adjournment of the meeting that is made - > > (i) by not less than 5 members having the right to vote; > > (ii) by a member or members representing not less than one tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote; > > (iii) by a member or members holding shares in the company conferring a right to vote, being shares on which an aggregate sum has been paid up equal to not less than one tenth of the total sum paid up on all the shares conferring that right; or > > (c) of requiring the instrument appointing a proxy or any other document necessary to show the validity of or otherwise relating to the appointment of a proxy to be received by the company or any other person more than 48 hours before a meeting or adjourned meeting in order that the appointment may be effective thereat. > > (2) The instrument appointing a proxy to vote at a meeting of a company shall be deemed to confer authority to demand or join in demanding a poll and, for the purposes of subsection (1), a demand by a person as proxy for a member of the company shall be deemed to be the same as a demand by the member. > > (3) A person entitled to vote on a poll at a meeting shall be deemed to be a person entitled to vote for the purposes of this Act. > > 129. Procedure at meetings. > > (1) Subject to the articles and to sections 67 (voting rights) and 132 (circulation of members' resolutions) - > > (a) 2 members of a company personally present shall form a quorum; > > (b) any member may be elected by the members present at a meeting to be the chairman; > > (c) in the case of a company having a share capital - > > (i) on a show of hands each member who is personally present and entitled to vote shall have one vote; > > (ii) on a poll each member shall have one vote in respect of each share held by him and where all or part of the share capital consists of stock or units of stock, each member shall have one vote in respect of the stock or units of stock held by him which is or are or were originally equivalent to one share; and > > (d) in the case of a company not having a share capital, every member shall have one vote. > > (2) On a poll taken at a meeting a person entitled to more than one vote need not, if he votes, use all his votes or cast all the votes he uses in the same way. > > (3) A corporation may by resolution of its directors or other governing body - > > (a) if it is a member of a company, authorise such person as it thinks fit to act as its proxy either at a particular meeting or at all meetings of the company or of any class of members; or > > (b) if it is a creditor, including a debenture holder of a company, authorise such person as it thinks fit to act as its proxy either at a particular meeting or at all meetings of any creditors of the company, > > and a person so authorised shall, in accordance with his authority and until his authority is revoked by the corporation, be entitled to exercise the same powers on behalf of the corporation as the corporation could exercise if it were an individual member, creditor or debenture holder of the company. > > (4) Where - > > (a) a person present at a meeting is authorised to act as the proxy of a corporation under subsection (3); and > > (b) the person is not otherwise entitled to be present at the meeting, > > the corporation shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be deemed to be personally present at the meeting. > > (5) A certificate under the seal of the corporation or signed on its behalf by an authorised person shall be prima facie evidence of the appointment or of the revocation of the appointment of a proxy under subsection (3). > > (6) Where a holding company is by itself or through a nominee entitled to the whole of the issued shares of a subsidiary and a minute is signed by a proxy of the holding company authorise under subsection (3) stating that any act, matter, or thing, or any ordinary or special resolution required by this Act or by the memorandum or articles of the subsidiary to be made, performed, or passed by or at an ordinary general meeting or an extraordinary general meeting of the subsidiary has been made, performed, or passed, that act, matter, thing, or resolution shall, for all purposes, be deemed to have been duly made, performed, or passed by or at an ordinary general meeting, or as the case requires, by or at an extraordinary general meeting of the subsidiary. > > (7) Where under this Act any notice, copy of a resolution or other document relating to any matter is required to be lodged with the Registrar by a company, and a minute referred to in subsection (6) which relates to such matter is signed by the proxy in accordance with that subsection, the company shall within 28 days lodge a copy of the minute. > > 130. Proxies. > > (1) Subject to section 129, a member entitled to attend and vote at a meeting of the company, or at a meeting of any class of members of a company, may appoint another person as his proxy to attend and vote in his stead at the meeting and that proxy shall have the same right as the member to speak at the meeting, but, unless the articles otherwise provide - > > (a) a proxy shall not be entitled to vote except on a poll; > > (b) a member shall not be entitled to appoint more than 2 proxies to attend and vote at the same meeting; and > > (c) where a member appoints 2 proxies the appointments shall be invalid unless he specifies the proportions of his holdings to be represented by each proxy. > > (2) In every notice calling a meeting of a company or a meeting of any class of members there shall appear with reasonable prominence a statement - > > (a) as to the rights of the member to appoint proxies to attend and vote instead of the member; and > > (b) that a proxy need not also be a member. It would seem to me that Section 128(1)(c) and 128(2) and 128(3) together make it quite clear that limitations on the appointment of proxies are not intended to be valid under the act. The act is somewhat vague on this and open to interpretation in that it does not outright prohibit such limitation, but it does not permit it and it goes to great lengths to discourage disenfranchisement by limitations on proxies. In such a case, I find it is usually wisest to follow the advice of trained and competent legal counsel with experience in the jurisdiction in question. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Tue Nov 15 05:34:05 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:34:05 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On 14 Nov 2016, at 20:58, ALAIN AINA wrote: > > i am still convinced this should be a matter of PDP, and we should discuss this in that regard. I will like to see the topic in the agenda for next PDPWG meeting. Bylaws changes are an issue for the members, while policy changes, and changes to the PDP, are an issue for the PDWG. This cuts across both. I think it?s fine for the PDP to define how the community uses its rights under the bylaws Article 11.5 to endorses or not endorse policies adopted by the Board under Bylaws article 11.4. Alan Barrett From Dickl at mopipi.ub.bw Tue Nov 15 07:31:00 2016 From: Dickl at mopipi.ub.bw (DICK, L. (MR.)) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:31:00 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Usage on the Internet Message-ID: Morning Where can I get our IPv6 Usage on the internet? Our block is 2001:43f8:2a0::/48. Thank you Regards Lesedi Luke Dick Networks | IT University of Botswana Tel: +267 355 4101 Fax: +267 3901594 Skype ID: lesedilukedick { Please consider the environment before printing this email } > From mangawilly at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 09:24:14 2016 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 10:24:14 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Usage on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Le 15/11/2016 ? 08:31, DICK, L. (MR.) a ?crit : > Morning > > Where can I get our IPv6 Usage on the internet? Our block is > 2001:43f8:2a0::/48. Thank you I don't know if you can find a reliable and objective platform describing your specific usage of IPv6 but in my humble opinion you should rely *first* on your internal monitoring tools. Then you can cross check various sites like : * http://stats.labs.apnic.net/ipv6/BW But as someone was saying on #ipv6 channel on freenode ?... its hard to believe the usage would ever go above 1% in any network you deploy ... assuming they are all /64s ? -- Willy Manga freenode: ongolaBoy Ubuntu Cameroonian Loco Team https://launchpad.net/~manga-willy -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 09:48:32 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:48:32 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal Message-ID: Hi community ! Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3 -'---old version---'' 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a. They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. ----new version----- 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a..They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. Regards. Arnaud. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amreesh.phokeer at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 10:24:43 2016 From: amreesh.phokeer at gmail.com (Amreesh Phokeer) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:24:43 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Usage on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Lesedi, On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:31 AM, DICK, L. (MR.) wrote: > Morning > > Where can I get our IPv6 Usage on the internet? Our block is > 2001:43f8:2a0::/48. Thank you > Willy is right, it's hard to find any usage information as this would require that you setup a monitoring tool e.g. Zabbix so that you can distinguish between v4 and v6 traffic. https://stat.ripe.net/2001%3A43f8%3A2a0%3A%3A%2F48#tabId=activity shows that you do not have any RIPE Atlas probes in your network, this would have given you some more indication on whether the probe is IPv6 capable/reachable but still, nothing on usage. > > Regards > > Lesedi Luke Dick > Networks | IT > University of Botswana > Tel: +267 355 4101 > Fax: +267 3901594 > Skype ID: lesedilukedick > > { Please consider the environment before printing this email } > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- Amreesh Phokeer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dewole at tinitop.com Tue Nov 15 10:37:47 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:37:47 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <92dfeba2-63f5-8b03-75f4-54caf9f64fb4@tinitop.com> Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud. To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events: Member XYZ initiates self-requested review; Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks; After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources; Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days; Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community; Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review. Is this a design feature or a bug? Regards, Dewole. On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Hi community ! > Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal > from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement > to the section 3.3.3 > > -'---old version---'' > > 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > a. They have requested the review themselves or > b. There has been a community complaint made against them that > warrants investigation. > > ----new version----- > > 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > a..They have requested the review themselves or > b. There has been a community complaint made against them that > warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and > AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the > review. However this review is not applicable to a member on which a > full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. > > Regards. > > Arnaud. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From dewole at tinitop.com Tue Nov 15 10:38:01 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:38:01 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud. To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events: Member XYZ initiates self-requested review; Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks; After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources; Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days; Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community; Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review. Is this a design feature or a bug? Regards, Dewole. On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Hi community ! > Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal > from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement > to the section 3.3.3 > > -'---old version---'' > > 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > a. They have requested the review themselves or > b. There has been a community complaint made against them that > warrants investigation. > > ----new version----- > > 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > a..They have requested the review themselves or > b. There has been a community complaint made against them that > warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and > AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the > review. However this review is not applicable to a member on which a > full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. > > Regards. > > Arnaud. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From ondouglas at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 11:55:15 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:55:15 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] BPF IXP: Call for Comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Community members, The IGF Best Practices Forum on Internet Exchange Points, BPF-IXP, has developed a 2016 BPF Output Document on IXPs. The document is now open for public comments until 23rd November. Kindly review the document at the link below and share any feedback ASAP. https://www.intgovforum.org/review/2016-igf-best-practice-forums-bpfs-draft-outputs-as-of-2-november/2016-igf-bpf-on-ixps-contributing-to-the-success-and-continued-development-of-internet-exchange-points-ixps/introduction-what-is-an-ixp/ -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kasender27 at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 13:25:15 2016 From: kasender27 at gmail.com (Remy Kasende) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:25:15 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Congratilation Message-ID: Hi Mr CB, Congratulation to you for your participation on the meeting for chalange to represtation in the sub-region. I thing you get the good way to be developping the central-africa in the NTIC technology. Best Regards, R?my Kassende-kazadi. Senior IT Network-support and Telecom's Infrastructures. kinshasa DRC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Tue Nov 15 17:39:23 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 21:39:23 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: <13E2C8DF-A7B0-4667-8116-C28A5EDB6479@delong.com> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <13E2C8DF-A7B0-4667-8116-C28A5EDB6479@delong.com> Message-ID: <2AF4FE6F-5E34-4BCA-A54B-DF68D63FEC1D@trstech.net> Hello, > On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems that the companies act requires proxies. >> >> ? And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC members(Registered Members). > > We being who, exactly? There was discussion on this list which led to the Jean-robert questioning to which Marcus refers to in this mail about "AFRINIC illegality? I explained that, the act only recognises the 9 board members who are the registered members. As quorum for registered members is 5 in person, the max of proxy one registered member can carry is 4. So the limit to 5 was defined to comply to the act while addressing the issues. > Because IIRC, AfriNIC legal counsel disagreed. > >> As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and zero proxy per candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and "Resources Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the elections process. As the changes discussed here are about improving accountability, encouraging participation through all means should be encouraged instead of allowing unlimited proxies. > > I would argue it was made to alter some perceived issues, which I am not convinced were actual issues. > > I am not convinced that unlimited proxies discourage participation and would, in fact, argue that limiting people?s choice in how they appoint proxies on their behalf may well discourage participation. > > However, based on your assertions I decided to look into the companies act and see what it actually says. > > As near as I can tell, the relevant sections are Part V, Subpart IV, sections 128 through 130 which read: > >> 128. Right to demand a poll. >> >> (1) Any provision in the articles shall be void in so far as it would have the effect - >> >> (a) of excluding the right to demand a poll at a general meeting on any question or matter other than the election of the chairman of the meeting or the adjournment of the meeting; >> >> (b) of making ineffective a demand for a poll on any question or matter other than the election of the chairman of the meeting or the adjournment of the meeting that is made - >> >> (i) by not less than 5 members having the right to vote; >> >> (ii) by a member or members representing not less than one tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote; >> >> (iii) by a member or members holding shares in the company conferring a right to vote, being shares on which an aggregate sum has been paid up equal to not less than one tenth of the total sum paid up on all the shares conferring that right; or >> >> (c) of requiring the instrument appointing a proxy or any other document necessary to show the validity of or otherwise relating to the appointment of a proxy to be received by the company or any other person more than 48 hours before a meeting or adjourned meeting in order that the appointment may be effective thereat. >> >> (2) The instrument appointing a proxy to vote at a meeting of a company shall be deemed to confer authority to demand or join in demanding a poll and, for the purposes of subsection (1), a demand by a person as proxy for a member of the company shall be deemed to be the same as a demand by the member. >> >> (3) A person entitled to vote on a poll at a meeting shall be deemed to be a person entitled to vote for the purposes of this Act. >> >> 129. Procedure at meetings. >> >> (1) Subject to the articles and to sections 67 (voting rights) and 132 (circulation of members' resolutions) - >> >> (a) 2 members of a company personally present shall form a quorum; >> >> (b) any member may be elected by the members present at a meeting to be the chairman; >> >> (c) in the case of a company having a share capital - >> >> (i) on a show of hands each member who is personally present and entitled to vote shall have one vote; >> >> (ii) on a poll each member shall have one vote in respect of each share held by him and where all or part of the share capital consists of stock or units of stock, each member shall have one vote in respect of the stock or units of stock held by him which is or are or were originally equivalent to one share; and >> >> (d) in the case of a company not having a share capital, every member shall have one vote. >> >> (2) On a poll taken at a meeting a person entitled to more than one vote need not, if he votes, use all his votes or cast all the votes he uses in the same way. >> >> (3) A corporation may by resolution of its directors or other governing body - >> >> (a) if it is a member of a company, authorise such person as it thinks fit to act as its proxy either at a particular meeting or at all meetings of the company or of any class of members; or >> >> (b) if it is a creditor, including a debenture holder of a company, authorise such person as it thinks fit to act as its proxy either at a particular meeting or at all meetings of any creditors of the company, >> >> and a person so authorised shall, in accordance with his authority and until his authority is revoked by the corporation, be entitled to exercise the same powers on behalf of the corporation as the corporation could exercise if it were an individual member, creditor or debenture holder of the company. >> >> (4) Where - >> >> (a) a person present at a meeting is authorised to act as the proxy of a corporation under subsection (3); and >> >> (b) the person is not otherwise entitled to be present at the meeting, >> >> the corporation shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be deemed to be personally present at the meeting. >> >> (5) A certificate under the seal of the corporation or signed on its behalf by an authorised person shall be prima facie evidence of the appointment or of the revocation of the appointment of a proxy under subsection (3). >> >> (6) Where a holding company is by itself or through a nominee entitled to the whole of the issued shares of a subsidiary and a minute is signed by a proxy of the holding company authorise under subsection (3) stating that any act, matter, or thing, or any ordinary or special resolution required by this Act or by the memorandum or articles of the subsidiary to be made, performed, or passed by or at an ordinary general meeting or an extraordinary general meeting of the subsidiary has been made, performed, or passed, that act, matter, thing, or resolution shall, for all purposes, be deemed to have been duly made, performed, or passed by or at an ordinary general meeting, or as the case requires, by or at an extraordinary general meeting of the subsidiary. >> >> (7) Where under this Act any notice, copy of a resolution or other document relating to any matter is required to be lodged with the Registrar by a company, and a minute referred to in subsection (6) which relates to such matter is signed by the proxy in accordance with that subsection, the company shall within 28 days lodge a copy of the minute. >> >> 130. Proxies. >> >> (1) Subject to section 129, a member entitled to attend and vote at a meeting of the company, or at a meeting of any class of members of a company, may appoint another person as his proxy to attend and vote in his stead at the meeting and that proxy shall have the same right as the member to speak at the meeting, but, unless the articles otherwise provide - >> >> (a) a proxy shall not be entitled to vote except on a poll; >> >> (b) a member shall not be entitled to appoint more than 2 proxies to attend and vote at the same meeting; and >> >> (c) where a member appoints 2 proxies the appointments shall be invalid unless he specifies the proportions of his holdings to be represented by each proxy. >> >> (2) In every notice calling a meeting of a company or a meeting of any class of members there shall appear with reasonable prominence a statement - >> >> (a) as to the rights of the member to appoint proxies to attend and vote instead of the member; and >> >> (b) that a proxy need not also be a member. > > It would seem to me that Section 128(1)(c) and 128(2) and 128(3) together make it quite clear that limitations on the appointment of proxies are not intended to be valid under the act. > > The act is somewhat vague on this and open to interpretation in that it does not outright prohibit such limitation, but it does not permit it and it goes to great lengths to discourage disenfranchisement by limitations on proxies. Seems like we are not reading the same act. Are you referring to the act presented here ? http://companies.govmu.org/English/Legislation/Pages/Companies-Act-2001.aspx This act directs how we operate AFRINIC LTD as a private company and the rules should be consider only in that context. > In such a case, I find it is usually wisest to follow the advice of trained and competent legal counsel with experience in the jurisdiction in question. The same legal counsel who supervised the adoption of the current bylaws in 2013 with theses changes. May be it i time for him to explain how it worked in 2013 and not now Thanks ?Alain > > Owen > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From madomey at hotmail.com Tue Nov 15 18:12:24 2016 From: madomey at hotmail.com (Marcus K. G. Adomey) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:12:24 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: <2AF4FE6F-5E34-4BCA-A54B-DF68D63FEC1D@trstech.net> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <13E2C8DF-A7B0-4667-8116-C28A5EDB6479@delong.com>, <2AF4FE6F-5E34-4BCA-A54B-DF68D63FEC1D@trstech.net> Message-ID: Hi Owen, The issue I raised is an important issue and was discussed extensively on this mailing list. It abides with common sense it should be addressed. Since then and to the best of my knowledge, nothing has been said about addressing it. So it is in the right direction to draw the attention of the CEO and Chair on it, and if it is an oversight, they do something about it. As usual and as the self-appointed PRO or Spokesperson of AfriNIC, you have failed to read very well my email and embark in your verbiage providing obviously erroneous answer. I am not surprised that you are pointing out that the issue I raised ?wasn't an issue of illegality of AfriNIC? when you could not even realize that my email was not addressed to you but rather was specifically addressed to the CEO and the Chair. Although we are on a public mailing list, the question is not for you. Allow the CEO and/or the Chair to speak for themselves. In fact, your strategy of occupy space with your empty verbiage is not helping the community. This attitude is characteristic of someone who does not mean well. I am still waiting for the reaction from the CEO and/or the Chair of the Board. Thanks Marcus ________________________________ From: ALAIN AINA Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:39:23 PM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality Hello, On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Owen DeLong > wrote: The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems that the companies act requires proxies. ? And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC members(Registered Members). We being who, exactly? There was discussion on this list which led to the Jean-robert questioning to which Marcus refers to in this mail about "AFRINIC illegality? I explained that, the act only recognises the 9 board members who are the registered members. As quorum for registered members is 5 in person, the max of proxy one registered member can carry is 4. So the limit to 5 was defined to comply to the act while addressing the issues. Because IIRC, AfriNIC legal counsel disagreed. As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and zero proxy per candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and "Resources Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the elections process. As the changes discussed here are about improving accountability, encouraging participation through all means should be encouraged instead of allowing unlimited proxies. I would argue it was made to alter some perceived issues, which I am not convinced were actual issues. I am not convinced that unlimited proxies discourage participation and would, in fact, argue that limiting people?s choice in how they appoint proxies on their behalf may well discourage participation. However, based on your assertions I decided to look into the companies act and see what it actually says. As near as I can tell, the relevant sections are Part V, Subpart IV, sections 128 through 130 which read: 128. Right to demand a poll. (1) Any provision in the articles shall be void in so far as it would have the effect - (a) of excluding the right to demand a poll at a general meeting on any question or matter other than the election of the chairman of the meeting or the adjournment of the meeting; (b) of making ineffective a demand for a poll on any question or matter other than the election of the chairman of the meeting or the adjournment of the meeting that is made - (i) by not less than 5 members having the right to vote; (ii) by a member or members representing not less than one tenth of the total voting rights of all the members having the right to vote; (iii) by a member or members holding shares in the company conferring a right to vote, being shares on which an aggregate sum has been paid up equal to not less than one tenth of the total sum paid up on all the shares conferring that right; or (c) of requiring the instrument appointing a proxy or any other document necessary to show the validity of or otherwise relating to the appointment of a proxy to be received by the company or any other person more than 48 hours before a meeting or adjourned meeting in order that the appointment may be effective thereat. (2) The instrument appointing a proxy to vote at a meeting of a company shall be deemed to confer authority to demand or join in demanding a poll and, for the purposes of subsection (1), a demand by a person as proxy for a member of the company shall be deemed to be the same as a demand by the member. (3) A person entitled to vote on a poll at a meeting shall be deemed to be a person entitled to vote for the purposes of this Act. 129. Procedure at meetings. (1) Subject to the articles and to sections 67 (voting rights) and 132 (circulation of members' resolutions) - (a) 2 members of a company personally present shall form a quorum; (b) any member may be elected by the members present at a meeting to be the chairman; (c) in the case of a company having a share capital - (i) on a show of hands each member who is personally present and entitled to vote shall have one vote; (ii) on a poll each member shall have one vote in respect of each share held by him and where all or part of the share capital consists of stock or units of stock, each member shall have one vote in respect of the stock or units of stock held by him which is or are or were originally equivalent to one share; and (d) in the case of a company not having a share capital, every member shall have one vote. (2) On a poll taken at a meeting a person entitled to more than one vote need not, if he votes, use all his votes or cast all the votes he uses in the same way. (3) A corporation may by resolution of its directors or other governing body - (a) if it is a member of a company, authorise such person as it thinks fit to act as its proxy either at a particular meeting or at all meetings of the company or of any class of members; or (b) if it is a creditor, including a debenture holder of a company, authorise such person as it thinks fit to act as its proxy either at a particular meeting or at all meetings of any creditors of the company, and a person so authorised shall, in accordance with his authority and until his authority is revoked by the corporation, be entitled to exercise the same powers on behalf of the corporation as the corporation could exercise if it were an individual member, creditor or debenture holder of the company. (4) Where - (a) a person present at a meeting is authorised to act as the proxy of a corporation under subsection (3); and (b) the person is not otherwise entitled to be present at the meeting, the corporation shall, for the purposes of subsection (1), be deemed to be personally present at the meeting. (5) A certificate under the seal of the corporation or signed on its behalf by an authorised person shall be prima facie evidence of the appointment or of the revocation of the appointment of a proxy under subsection (3). (6) Where a holding company is by itself or through a nominee entitled to the whole of the issued shares of a subsidiary and a minute is signed by a proxy of the holding company authorise under subsection (3) stating that any act, matter, or thing, or any ordinary or special resolution required by this Act or by the memorandum or articles of the subsidiary to be made, performed, or passed by or at an ordinary general meeting or an extraordinary general meeting of the subsidiary has been made, performed, or passed, that act, matter, thing, or resolution shall, for all purposes, be deemed to have been duly made, performed, or passed by or at an ordinary general meeting, or as the case requires, by or at an extraordinary general meeting of the subsidiary. (7) Where under this Act any notice, copy of a resolution or other document relating to any matter is required to be lodged with the Registrar by a company, and a minute referred to in subsection (6) which relates to such matter is signed by the proxy in accordance with that subsection, the company shall within 28 days lodge a copy of the minute. 130. Proxies. (1) Subject to section 129, a member entitled to attend and vote at a meeting of the company, or at a meeting of any class of members of a company, may appoint another person as his proxy to attend and vote in his stead at the meeting and that proxy shall have the same right as the member to speak at the meeting, but, unless the articles otherwise provide - (a) a proxy shall not be entitled to vote except on a poll; (b) a member shall not be entitled to appoint more than 2 proxies to attend and vote at the same meeting; and (c) where a member appoints 2 proxies the appointments shall be invalid unless he specifies the proportions of his holdings to be represented by each proxy. (2) In every notice calling a meeting of a company or a meeting of any class of members there shall appear with reasonable prominence a statement - (a) as to the rights of the member to appoint proxies to attend and vote instead of the member; and (b) that a proxy need not also be a member. It would seem to me that Section 128(1)(c) and 128(2) and 128(3) together make it quite clear that limitations on the appointment of proxies are not intended to be valid under the act. The act is somewhat vague on this and open to interpretation in that it does not outright prohibit such limitation, but it does not permit it and it goes to great lengths to discourage disenfranchisement by limitations on proxies. Seems like we are not reading the same act. Are you referring to the act presented here ? http://companies.govmu.org/English/Legislation/Pages/Companies-Act-2001.aspx This act directs how we operate AFRINIC LTD as a private company and the rules should be consider only in that context. In such a case, I find it is usually wisest to follow the advice of trained and competent legal counsel with experience in the jurisdiction in question. The same legal counsel who supervised the adoption of the current bylaws in 2013 with theses changes. May be it i time for him to explain how it worked in 2013 and not now Thanks ?Alain Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sergekbk at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 19:18:48 2016 From: sergekbk at gmail.com (sergekbk) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 20:18:48 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal Message-ID: <0esdvkqntn1xves0t66ldl10.1479237528858@email.android.com> Hello Dewole, Thanks for this comment. The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources? portfolio.? If? the portfolio? changes with new allocation,?? member can be audited? anytime on the new ressources if required.Is this clear enough or shall we make? it explicit? ? Kind Regards. Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Dewole Ajao Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00) To: Arnaud AMELINA , "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud. To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events: Member XYZ initiates self-requested review; Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks; After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources; Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days; Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community; Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review. Is this a design feature or a bug? Regards, Dewole. On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: Hi community ! Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3 -'---old version---'' 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a. They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. ----new version----- 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a..They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC? staff? shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member? on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. Regards. Arnaud. _______________________________________________ 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: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 16 06:24:12 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:24:12 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality In-Reply-To: <13E2C8DF-A7B0-4667-8116-C28A5EDB6479@delong.com> References: <424f0c8d-e055-6173-266b-12e091d226e1@tinitop.com> <13E2C8DF-A7B0-4667-8116-C28A5EDB6479@delong.com> Message-ID: > On 14 Nov 2016, at 22:19, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems that the companies act requires proxies. >> >> ? And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC members(Registered Members). > > We being who, exactly? Because IIRC, AfriNIC legal counsel disagreed. I think it?s very widely agreed that the ?members? or ?shareholders? in the Companies Act correspond to AFRINIC?s ?Registered Members?, and that AFRINIC?s ?Resource Members? and ?Associate Members? have no counterpart in the Companies Act. This implies that the Resource Members and Associate Members have the rights granted by the Bylaws, but not rights that the Act grants to members to shareholders. > As near as I can tell, the relevant sections are Part V, Subpart IV, sections 128 through 130 which read: I think you might be looking at a different version of the Act. The one I have was downloaded from and claims to be THE COMPANIES ACT 2001 ? ACT 5 of 2001, but I gather from the file name that it?s actually a version as amended in 2016. In the version that I have, the relevant part is the FIFTH SCHEDULE, section 6. Alan Barrett From saul at enetworks.co.za Wed Nov 16 06:25:57 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:25:57 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a5501d23fd2$4a6041b0$df20c510$@enetworks.co.za> Hi Currently, you can only apply for IP space for immediate usage and up to 1 year and it currently takes about 3 months to get space (recent experience). Just a question: if this gets passed, where is AFRINIC going to get the resources to do this since I don?t think that the hostmasters have the time for extra work of this nature. Cheers Saul From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com] Sent: 15 November 2016 11:49 AM To: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal Hi community ! Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3 -'---old version---'' 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a. They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. ----new version----- 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a..They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. Regards. Arnaud. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Dickl at mopipi.ub.bw Wed Nov 16 07:35:39 2016 From: Dickl at mopipi.ub.bw (DICK, L. (MR.)) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:35:39 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Usage on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Morning Thank you, Amreesh. Regards Lesedi Luke Dick Networks | IT University of Botswana Tel: +267 355 4101 Fax: +267 3901594 Skype ID: lesedilukedick { Please consider the environment before printing this email } From: Amreesh Phokeer > Date: Tuesday 15 November 2016 at 12:24 To: Lesedi Luke Dick > Cc: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Usage on the Internet Hi Lesedi, On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 8:31 AM, DICK, L. (MR.) > wrote: Morning Where can I get our IPv6 Usage on the internet? Our block is 2001:43f8:2a0::/48. Thank you Willy is right, it's hard to find any usage information as this would require that you setup a monitoring tool e.g. Zabbix so that you can distinguish between v4 and v6 traffic. https://stat.ripe.net/2001%3A43f8%3A2a0%3A%3A%2F48#tabId=activity shows that you do not have any RIPE Atlas probes in your network, this would have given you some more indication on whether the probe is IPv6 capable/reachable but still, nothing on usage. Regards Lesedi Luke Dick Networks | IT University of Botswana Tel: +267 355 4101 Fax: +267 3901594 Skype ID: lesedilukedick { Please consider the environment before printing this email } > _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- Amreesh Phokeer iv> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dewole at forum.org.ng Wed Nov 16 09:51:56 2016 From: dewole at forum.org.ng (Dewole Ajao) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 10:51:56 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal In-Reply-To: <0esdvkqntn1xves0t66ldl10.1479237528858@email.android.com> References: <0esdvkqntn1xves0t66ldl10.1479237528858@email.android.com> Message-ID: I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear and leave no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put additional burdens of interpretation on staff. If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid on allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal) should state it clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the 24-month window to stay in place come-what-may, it's better for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about it. Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider. Hopefully, they can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,) take the inputs from the community into their modified proposal. 3.3.2 Selected: A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact between the AFRINIC and the member. Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from billing) that measures degree of contact with members? If there is no agreed means of measuring the degree contact, we need to define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as referred to in the proposal) can be measured objectively. /Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too many resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's Assisted Registry Check (ARC). See https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check/ /Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members'//Registry, Resource, and Route/rDNS information and then//sends emails to the contacts on file showing their view. They then schedule a telephone call to work with the member and fix any identified issues. // / /My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes reveal issues that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary model is by random checks but done in a manner that checks every member at least once in 3 years //(given the size of RIPE)//. They also have ARCs that are initiated as a result of information received from the member or third parties. / Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency check-and-fix activity as described above be used to measure the degree of contact? Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more predictable, can these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing the "lack of investigation" problem as well as the concern about taking up much of members' and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time? Regards, Dewole. (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and Community-discuss) On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote: > Hello Dewole, > > Thanks for this comment. > The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources > portfolio. If the portfolio changes with new allocation, member > can be audited anytime on the new ressources if required. > Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ? > > Kind Regards. > > */Serge Ilunga/* > */Cell: +243814443160/* > */Skype: sergekbk/* > */R.D.Congo/* > -------- Original message -------- > From: Dewole Ajao > Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00) > To: Arnaud AMELINA , "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource > Policy" , General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy > proposal > > Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, > Arnaud. > > To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of > events: > > Member XYZ initiates self-requested review; > Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks; > After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources; > Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days; > Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) > number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community; > Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a > review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review. > > Is this a design feature or a bug? > > Regards, > > Dewole. > > > On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: >> >> Hi community ! >> Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal >> from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as >> replacement to the section 3.3.3 >> >> -'---old version---'' >> >> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: >> >> a. They have requested the review themselves or >> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that >> warrants investigation. >> >> ----new version----- >> >> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: >> >> a..They have requested the review themselves or >> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that >> warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and >> AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct >> the review. However this review is not applicable to a member on >> which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. >> >> Regards. >> >> Arnaud. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From aalain at trstech.net Wed Nov 16 10:48:00 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:48:00 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <056A2AB6-2F78-4D8E-A5DA-5F3F7A947B05@trstech.net> hello, > On Nov 15, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 20:58, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> >> i am still convinced this should be a matter of PDP, and we should discuss this in that regard. I will like to see the topic in the agenda for next PDPWG meeting. > > Bylaws changes are an issue for the members, while policy changes, and changes to the PDP, are an issue for the PDWG. This cuts across both. Nope. All, including bylaws changes are issues for the community even if bylaws changes approval is for members and board. Bylaws shall always recognise and empower community supremacy, role and responsibility in adopting and approving policies which regulate how we managed the numbers ressources in the public trust. That is why the bylaws defines the PDP as below: ==== Policy Development Process: A "bottom-up", open and transparent process, approved by the Internet Community wherein all stakeholders may participate in the creation of policies which would ensure that the Internet Number Resources are distributed and managed in a responsible and fair manner ===== But authorise ?board" in specific circumstances to adopt policies which ?shall be? submitted to the ?community? for endorsement. Any change to bylaws especially in this context of improving accountability shall not alter these principles. > > I think it?s fine for the PDP to define how the community uses its rights under the bylaws Article 11.5 to endorses or not endorse policies adopted by the Board under Bylaws article 11.4. Not only how community exercises the right given by 11.5. If community thinks the section 3.6 (varying the process)of the CPM is not sufficient to handle board policy adoption. PDP shall be amended to clearly define how board can initiate policy proposals, the review mechanisms, and adoption by the board, including how community handle such policies. Thanks ?Alain > > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Nov 16 10:59:17 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:59:17 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <056A2AB6-2F78-4D8E-A5DA-5F3F7A947B05@trstech.net> References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> <056A2AB6-2F78-4D8E-A5DA-5F3F7A947B05@trstech.net> Message-ID: > On 16 Nov 2016, at 14:48, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> Bylaws changes are an issue for the members, while policy changes, and changes to the PDP, are an issue for the PDWG. This cuts across both. > > Nope. All, including bylaws changes are issues for the community even if bylaws changes approval is for members and board. Bylaws shall always recognise and empower community supremacy, role and responsibility in adopting and approving policies which regulate how we managed the numbers ressources in the public trust. I think we agree. Yes, the community can be involved in discussion of bylaws, but adoption of changes is for the members and board. Yes, the community must discuss and approve policies, but adoption is by the Board. Alan Barrett From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Wed Nov 16 11:17:03 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:17:03 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> <056A2AB6-2F78-4D8E-A5DA-5F3F7A947B05@trstech.net> Message-ID: On 16 Nov 2016 12:00 p.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > On 16 Nov 2016, at 14:48, ALAIN AINA wrote: > >> Bylaws changes are an issue for the members, while policy changes, and changes to the PDP, are an issue for the PDWG. This cuts across both. > > > > Nope. All, including bylaws changes are issues for the community even if bylaws changes approval is for members and board. Bylaws shall always recognise and empower community supremacy, role and responsibility in adopting and approving policies which regulate how we managed the numbers ressources in the public trust. > > I think we agree. Yes, the community can be involved in discussion of bylaws, but adoption of changes is for the members and board. Yes, the community must discuss and approve policies, but adoption is by the Board. > I also think you and Alain agree on the principle. What I understand might be lacking is the process. If we agree, we should fix. Maybe Alain or someone else can propose text or point to how this is catered for. -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Wed Nov 16 11:28:57 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:28:57 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <2EB72651-D5A8-4341-AA22-6F7D38550DA6@afrinic.net> <93CF89F2-5553-498F-9AF7-F9DB9073ED7C@afrinic.net> <4C46D6FF-74E6-4FCB-A7E5-0C44F7588983@delong.com> <7F5B4B72-BD99-4576-AA8E-898AC1C7ADB5@afrinic.net> <142A4F27-B0D6-4552-A9BD-5A5F7B214023@delong.com> <493A3ED7-1500-4090-AAF1-CC39AC2716FA@afrinic.net> <7E3E0896-E489-47B6-8182-FAFD4E113B05@delong.com> <73E4F457-EA35-4D9D-A969-AC3B37AC152F@afrinic.net> <056A2AB6-2F78-4D8E-A5DA-5F3F7A947B05@trstech.net> Message-ID: <99B15A7F-3E14-4B25-A882-1ABC573B6C27@trstech.net> > On Nov 16, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > > On 16 Nov 2016 12:00 p.m., "Alan Barrett" > wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 Nov 2016, at 14:48, ALAIN AINA > wrote: > > >> Bylaws changes are an issue for the members, while policy changes, and changes to the PDP, are an issue for the PDWG. This cuts across both. > > > > > > Nope. All, including bylaws changes are issues for the community even if bylaws changes approval is for members and board. Bylaws shall always recognise and empower community supremacy, role and responsibility in adopting and approving policies which regulate how we managed the numbers ressources in the public trust. > > > > I think we agree. Yes, the community can be involved in discussion of bylaws, but adoption of changes is for the members and board. Yes, the community must discuss and approve policies, but adoption is by the Board. > > > > I also think you and Alain agree on the principle. What I understand might be lacking is the process. If we agree, we should fix. > > Maybe Alain or someone else can propose text or point to how this is catered for. > > I proposed that this be in the agenda for the next PDPWG meeting, but the draft agenda i saw did not take this into consideration. I am left to discussing this during open mic. Thanks ?Alain > -Omo > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From sergekbk at gmail.com Wed Nov 16 13:06:47 2016 From: sergekbk at gmail.com (sergekbk) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:06:47 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal Message-ID: <98mrgr52lvoqjy7g3bkj7yi8.1479301357869@email.android.com> Dewole, Inline below are comments. Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Dewole Ajao Date: 11/16/2016 10:51 (GMT+01:00) To: sergekbk , Arnaud AMELINA , "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear and leave no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put additional burdens of interpretation on staff. If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid on allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal) should state it clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the 24-month window to stay in place come-what-may, it's better for the policy (proposal) to be explicit about it.++++++++++++To avoid any ambiguity, see an updated version 3.3.3 of: -'---old version---'' 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a. They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. ----new version----- 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a..They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC? staff? shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member? with the same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months.+++++++++++++ Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider. Hopefully, they can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,) take the inputs from the community into their modified proposal. 3.3.2 Selected: A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact between the AFRINIC and the member. Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from billing) that measures degree of contact with members? If there is no agreed means of measuring the degree contact, we need to define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as referred to in the proposal) can be measured objectively. Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too many resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's Assisted Registry Check (ARC). See https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry, Resource, and Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the contacts on file showing their view. They then schedule a telephone call to work with the member and fix any identified issues. My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes reveal issues that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary model is by random checks but done in a manner that checks every member at least once in 3 years (given the size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that are initiated as a result of information received from the member or third parties. Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency check-and-fix activity as described above be used to measure the degree of contact? Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more predictable, can these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing the "lack of investigation" problem as well as the concern about taking up much of members' and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time??++++++++++ For the other concerns, it is out of scope for the policy to go inside such implementation details. ?It is Afrinic internal operations staff to define on how they deal with members in operations or when implementing RSA. ++++++++++ Regards, Dewole. (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and Community-discuss) With Regards. On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote: Hello Dewole, Thanks for this comment. The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources? portfolio.? If? the portfolio? changes with new allocation,?? member can be audited? anytime on the new ressources if required. Is this clear enough or shall we make? it explicit? ? Kind Regards. Serge Ilunga Cell: +243814443160 Skype: sergekbk R.D.Congo -------- Original message -------- From: Dewole Ajao Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00) To: Arnaud AMELINA , "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" , General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud. To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events: Member XYZ initiates self-requested review; Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks; After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources; Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days; Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community; Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review. Is this a design feature or a bug? Regards, Dewole. On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: Hi community ! Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 3.3.3 -'---old version---'' 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a. They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. ----new version----- 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: a..They have requested the review themselves or b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC? staff? shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member? on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. Regards. Arnaud. _______________________________________________ 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: From Mathew.Chigwende at liquidtelecom.com Tue Nov 29 23:39:04 2016 From: Mathew.Chigwende at liquidtelecom.com (Mathew Chigwende) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 23:39:04 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Soft Landing Policy - Call for Sanity Message-ID: Dear AFRIC faithful, As the morning dawns and the Afrinic community is going to vote on the policies, I hope sanity will prevail and everyone stays as far away from the original Soft Landing Policy as possible. Simply put, this policy does not support internet development, but defines a long, painful and expensive way of seeing off IPv4. For starters, all other regions have depleted their IPV4 space, so what is so special about Africa that their IPv4 will exist for as long as possible while they are not really adding any value? If a member needs IPv4 addresses, they are limited to a mere /22. We are seeing huge developments in LTE, GPON and WIFI all across Africa. It will only mean that each time one needs some IP space it will be more and more expensive. To make matters worse, this policy does not encourage IPv6 uptake. Each uptake of IPv4 should encourage some documented use of IPv6 as well. Members should show that they have at least a parallel IPv6 deployment plan. I don?t see why we need to reserve addresses either. 3.9.2 Allocation/Assignments to new LIRs or End-Users: Imagine I have an organization that has just deployed a huge network, serving thousands of customers, why would I not get addresses ? because we are waiting for a new company to be formed and to figure out what they want to use IP addresses for. No. If I have a valid reason for the space, I should just get it, and not wait for someone who might be innovative one day. 3.9.3 Reserve for unforeseen situations: What unseen situations? We have learnt a lot from other regions that have run out of space. Keeping V4 will only kill innovation. I have great trust and believe in future generations. They will come up with some innovative ways of dealing with this. They will not even need IPv4! So keeping some IPv4 blocks for them will only keep blinkers on them. Set them free and let them innovate. So, for those who have registered to vote, well done! Go and burn those IPv4 and set the future generations free. Don?t keep them in IPv4 captivity. There is much more in the world of IPv6. Simply eject the soft landing policy. Regards, Mathew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dewole at tinitop.com Wed Nov 30 05:53:00 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 06:53:00 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Soft Landing Policy - Call for Sanity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7f73afde-b8b4-6c28-c9cb-4f03242e5f27@tinitop.com> Here's a resource you might find useful: https://goo.gl/FDLmZF Dewole. On 30/11/2016 00:39, Mathew Chigwende wrote: > > Dear AFRIC faithful, > > As the morning dawns and the Afrinic community is going to vote on the > policies, I hope sanity will prevail and everyone stays as far away > from the original Soft Landing Policy as possible. Simply put, this > policy does not support internet development, but defines a long, > painful and expensive way of seeing off IPv4. > > For starters, all other regions have depleted their IPV4 space, so > what is so special about Africa that their IPv4 will exist for as long > as possible while they are not really adding any value? If a member > needs IPv4 addresses, they are limited to a mere /22. We are seeing > huge developments in LTE, GPON and WIFI all across Africa. It will > only mean that each time one needs some IP space it will be more and > more expensive. > > To make matters worse, this policy does not encourage IPv6 uptake. > Each uptake of IPv4 should encourage some documented use of IPv6 as > well. Members should show that they have at least a parallel IPv6 > deployment plan. > > I don?t see why we need to reserve addresses either. > > 3.9.2 Allocation/Assignments to new LIRs or End-Users: Imagine I have > an organization that has just deployed a huge network, serving > thousands of customers, why would I not get addresses ? because we are > waiting for a new company to be formed and to figure out what they > want to use IP addresses for. No. If I have a valid reason for the > space, I should just get it, and not wait for someone who might be > innovative one day. > > 3.9.3 Reserve for unforeseen situations: What unseen situations? We > have learnt a lot from other regions that have run out of space. > > Keeping V4 will only kill innovation. I have great trust and believe > in future generations. They will come up with some innovative ways of > dealing with this. They will not even need IPv4! So keeping some > IPv4 blocks for them will only keep blinkers on them. Set them free > and let them innovate. > > So, for those who have registered to vote, well done! Go and burn > those IPv4 and set the future generations free. Don?t keep them in > IPv4 captivity. There is much more in the world of IPv6. Simply eject > the soft landing policy. > > Regards, > > Mathew > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From dewole at tinitop.com Wed Nov 30 06:34:36 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:34:36 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Soft Landing Policy - Call for Sanity In-Reply-To: <7f73afde-b8b4-6c28-c9cb-4f03242e5f27@tinitop.com> References: <7f73afde-b8b4-6c28-c9cb-4f03242e5f27@tinitop.com> Message-ID: <1255e152-8ea4-495f-3f77-f5216e5b0c82@tinitop.com> I should also mention that the community provided useful insight to authors of both proposals at yesterday's public policy meeting. The authors of both proposals have mutually agreed to work together and over the coming days we should have output that we can proceed with. I think the community should commend them for being mature and moving to work together. Please join the RPD mailing list to follow and contribute to policy discussions better. https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd (rpd at afrinic.net) Regards, Dewole. On 30/11/2016 06:53, Dewole Ajao wrote: > > Here's a resource you might find useful: https://goo.gl/FDLmZF > > Dewole. > > On 30/11/2016 00:39, Mathew Chigwende wrote: >> >> Dear AFRIC faithful, >> >> As the morning dawns and the Afrinic community is going to vote on >> the policies, I hope sanity will prevail and everyone stays as far >> away from the original Soft Landing Policy as possible. Simply put, >> this policy does not support internet development, but defines a >> long, painful and expensive way of seeing off IPv4. >> >> For starters, all other regions have depleted their IPV4 space, so >> what is so special about Africa that their IPv4 will exist for as >> long as possible while they are not really adding any value? If a >> member needs IPv4 addresses, they are limited to a mere /22. We are >> seeing huge developments in LTE, GPON and WIFI all across Africa. It >> will only mean that each time one needs some IP space it will be more >> and more expensive. >> >> To make matters worse, this policy does not encourage IPv6 uptake. >> Each uptake of IPv4 should encourage some documented use of IPv6 as >> well. Members should show that they have at least a parallel IPv6 >> deployment plan. >> >> I don?t see why we need to reserve addresses either. >> >> 3.9.2 Allocation/Assignments to new LIRs or End-Users: Imagine I >> have an organization that has just deployed a huge network, serving >> thousands of customers, why would I not get addresses ? because we >> are waiting for a new company to be formed and to figure out what >> they want to use IP addresses for. No. If I have a valid reason for >> the space, I should just get it, and not wait for someone who might >> be innovative one day. >> >> 3.9.3 Reserve for unforeseen situations: What unseen situations? We >> have learnt a lot from other regions that have run out of space. >> >> Keeping V4 will only kill innovation. I have great trust and believe >> in future generations. They will come up with some innovative ways of >> dealing with this. They will not even need IPv4! So keeping some >> IPv4 blocks for them will only keep blinkers on them. Set them free >> and let them innovate. >> >> So, for those who have registered to vote, well done! Go and burn >> those IPv4 and set the future generations free. Don?t keep them in >> IPv4 captivity. There is much more in the world of IPv6. Simply eject >> the soft landing policy. >> >> Regards, >> >> Mathew >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From kasender27 at gmail.com Wed Nov 30 13:58:55 2016 From: kasender27 at gmail.com (Remy Kasende) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:58:55 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 for IPv6 Message-ID: Dear Mathew I am all right with you to all what you have just written for the IPv6 that one make gone(taken) up in Africa given that other communities one taken the lead already with IPV6 with regard to(compared with) her(it) v4. But you should not forget that if the Africans in community or private, individuals do not move forward with their Internet, it is more the fault to those who govern Africa because they never put a development policy of the technology in the level their community who had to take care of the progress(promotion) towards IPv6. For me the solution it is to begin little by little the introduction of her(it) v4 in community until the total migration of V4 in V6. R?my Kassende-kazadi. Senior IT Network-support and Telecom's Infrastructures. kinshasa DRC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: