[Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK
gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci
Tue Oct 4 12:06:53 UTC 2016
Chez nous, on dit : « Le chien ne change jamais sa manière de s’assoir ».
C’est juste diplomatique et un proverbe bien de chez nous.
Avançons.
Patrick.
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680]
[logo-artci-test]<http://www.artci.ci/> www.artci.ci<http://www.artci.ci/>
Serges Patrick GHANSAH-GNONKOTO
Chef de service Gestion des Noms de domaine et Adresses IP
Head of Service Domain names and IP addresses Management
Chef du Projet de Mise en œuvre du plan national de déploiement de l’IPv6
Head of Implementation Project of the national plan of IPv6 deployment
Direction des Systèmes d’information et des Transactions Electroniques
Téléphone : +225 20 34 43 73 / Poste 7960
Mobile : +225 05 28 90 20
Fax : +225 20 34 43 75
Email : gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci> gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci> gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci>
-----Message d'origine-----
De : community-discuss-request at afrinic.net [mailto:community-discuss-request at afrinic.net]
Envoyé : mardi 4 octobre 2016 12:00
À : community-discuss at afrinic.net
Objet : Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1
Send Community-Discuss mailing list submissions to
community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
community-discuss-request at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss-request at afrinic.net>
You can reach the person managing the list at
community-discuss-owner at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss-owner at afrinic.net>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Community-Discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Omo Oaiya)
2. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum
(GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK)
3. Re: Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Owen DeLong)
4. Re: Accountability assessment - bylaws changes (Owen DeLong)
5. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
changes (Arnaud AMELINA)
6. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
changes (Alan Barrett)
7. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
changes (Arnaud AMELINA)
8. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
changes (Alan Barrett)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:13:37 +0100
From: Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net<mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<CAG1eoi0NbJTe5EnDwy=cVH5MX3RxboCGaPAtkmtAQNDy2jjGug at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAG1eoi0NbJTe5EnDwy=cVH5MX3RxboCGaPAtkmtAQNDy2jjGug at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Strong or not, you should be able to understand that it is just an opinion
whether in your personal capacity or as Afrinic director.
When one filters the noise out, the issue boils down to the supremacy of
the Mauritius code which if taken to the letter as you so emphatically
propose empowers only registered members ie directors of AfriNIC over the
bylaws which empower everyone in the community (resource+registered
members+interested parties).
Very simple to me.
Omo.
On 3 Oct 2016 12:13 p.m., "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Again, and this will be my last word on the subject -
>
> I have very strong opinions on what was stated in that line that I have
> quoted in my previous two emails on this subject. These are opinions, and
> I believe that the sentiment that I wished to convey was that the words
> used could have ramifications and were dangerous. If someone can give me a
> more diplomatic way to convey the same sentiment - I'm more than happy to
> hear it - many times my words are designed to convey a sentiment and
> unfortunately cause offense - happy to learn new words - so long as the
> sentiment behind the words remains the same :)
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net]
> Sent: 03 October 2016 14:03
> To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
> Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions.
>
> Alan Barrett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/efa6e570/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 14:30:44 +0000
From: GH.-GNONKOTO Serges PATRICK <gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci>>
To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>" <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<HE1PR0401MB2204F0F062FD9A731B94A290FCC20 at HE1PR0401MB2204.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com<mailto:HE1PR0401MB2204F0F062FD9A731B94A290FCC20 at HE1PR0401MB2204.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Salut,
Je crois qu'il faut se garder de tenir de propos d?sobligeants car ce n'est ni le lieu et le moment. Car qui peut avoir cette outrecuidance de lancer une invective sur son coll?gue ?
Andrew, il y a eu de revenir sur tes propos et consid?rer que quelqu'un d'autre puisse avoir une id?e divergente de la tienne sans pourtant ?tre ''irresponsable'' (entre griffes, pour ?viter d'employer tes mots) !
La question ici est relative au quorum et au nombre de repr?sentativit?. Nous attelons-nous ? ?a et recentrons le d?bat.
Patrick.
[cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680]
[logo-artci-test]<http://www.artci.ci/> www.artci.ci<http://www.artci.ci/<http://www.artci.ci%3chttp:/www.artci.ci/>>
Serges Patrick GHANSAH-GNONKOTO
Chef de service Gestion des Noms de domaine et Adresses IP
Head of Service Domain names and IP addresses Management
Chef du Projet de Mise en ?uvre du plan national de d?ploiement de l?IPv6
Head of Implementation Project of the national plan of IPv6 deployment
Direction des Syst?mes d?information et des Transactions Electroniques
T?l?phone : +225 20 34 43 73 / Poste 7960
Mobile : +225 05 28 90 20
Fax : +225 20 34 43 75
Email : gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci%3cmailto:gnonkoto.patrick at artci.ci>> gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci%3cmailto:gnonkoto.patrick at nic.ci>> gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci<mailto:gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci%3cmailto:gnonkoto.patrick at testbedipv6.ci>>
________________________________
De : community-discuss-request at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss-request at afrinic.net> <community-discuss-request at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss-request at afrinic.net>>
Envoy? : lundi 3 octobre 2016 12:00
? : community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Objet : Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 1
Send Community-Discuss mailing list submissions to
community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
community-discuss-request at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss-request at afrinic.net>
You can reach the person managing the list at
community-discuss-owner at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss-owner at afrinic.net>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Community-Discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Frank Habicht)
2. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (ALAIN AINA)
3. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston)
4. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Jackson Muthili)
5. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston)
6. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws
changes (L.A. Ym)
7. Re: [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
changes (Ben Roberts)
8. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Barrack Otieno)
9. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (ARTHUR CARINDAL)
10. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Musa Stephen Honlue)
11. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Miku, E. Cornelius)
12. Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe (Loganaden Velvindron)
13. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Jackson Muthili)
14. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Alan Barrett)
15. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Andrew Alston)
16. Re: Accountability assessment - quorum (Boubakar Barry)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:58:48 +0300
From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>
To: community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID: <98879168-84f0-6339-dcbd-24713e494d68 at geier.ne.tz<mailto:98879168-84f0-6339-dcbd-24713e494d68 at geier.ne.tz>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Alain,
On 10/1/2016 4:54 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote:
...
> Referring to the Act beyond what its applied to "Registered members"
> seems inappropriate and can lead to questioning may other things?
...
I want to ask and not assume.
Do you mean that "questioning other things" is a bad thing?
Or was this an invitation to "question other things", like the ones you
listed?
That's because I was understanding the first, and someone else
understood the latter.
Thanks,
Frank
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 12:35:20 +0400
From: ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net<mailto:aalain at trstech.net>>
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID: <7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1 at trstech.net<mailto:7ECBCC26-69EF-4928-9DA2-3AA34DA50CB1 at trstech.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hello Andrew,
I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me.
Let me put this in a few points here again:
1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law
2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?.
2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight.
The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ?
Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow:
======
ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising:
a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region;
b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and
c) Five (5) Resource Members.
==========
So five (5) registered members in person are required.
With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ?
The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act.
Hope this helps
?Alain
> On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
> Mirriam,
>
> I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that.
>
> Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression).
>
> I take serious issue with this statement specifically:
>
> One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue.
>
> You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it.
>
> What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences.
>
> I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> From: Mirriam <mirriamlauren at yahoo.com<mailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com>>
> Reply-To: Mirriam <mirriamlauren at yahoo.com<mailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com>>
> Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36
> To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
> Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
>
> On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Alain,
> >
> > Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible.
> >
> >
> Hi Andrew,
> You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you.
> In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act?
> Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation.
> You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board.
> So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits?
>
> Mirriam
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/ad1e7a52/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 08:49:21 +0000
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
To: ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net<mailto:aalain at trstech.net>>, General Discussions of AFRINIC
<community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<AMSPR03MB5349799D3F002C5E4F52911EEC20 at AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com<mailto:AMSPR03MB5349799D3F002C5E4F52911EEC20 at AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Writing in my personal capacity.
Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a director. What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words as the words of the board.
Secondly ? my understanding of this situation is actually more complex than what is being stated on these lists.
Let us examine the clause in question:
(viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election; and
There is no limitation anywhere ? and I would argue that you cannot limit this either ? that states that proxies must be given to members. In fact in no proxy that I have seen used at AFRINIC is a proxy issued to a member, it is issued to an individual who then represents the entity that granted the proxy.
As such, the above clause is null and void.
As an example:
If entity X issued a proxy to a specific COMPANY (or Member) ? then the limit would apply.
If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was a member in their own right (which ONLY applies to my knowledge in the case of an extremely limited number of associate members) ? the limit would apply.
If entity X issued a proxy to a person who was NOT a member in their own right, but merely WORKED for a member, then the proxy has been issued to a non-member, and the above clause is null and void and has no application.
Under your argument ? if the proxy is issued to a registered member ? by the act the rule would not apply. This also deals with the fact that registered members are members in their own right (as with the associate members referred to above) ? so again ? the limitation does not apply.
Effectively, my reading of the above clause in the bylaws is that it is a mute point and the text in the bylaws is extraneous since it is not in any way enforceable.
Again ? open to hearing legal opinion on this.
Thanks
Andrew
From: ALAIN AINA [mailto:aalain at trstech.net]
Sent: 03 October 2016 11:35
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Hello Andrew,
I respect Afrinic Directors and follow good rules of conduct. So I will not return to the disparaging words used in your response to me.
Let me put this in a few points here again:
1- I never said to not follow or comply with Law
2- I called for clear understanding between an Act provision applying to ?registered members? and not to ?resources members?.
2- AFRINIC has always followed the Act, laws, but also accommodates its community oversight.
The limit at ?5? of the number of proxy is lawful when applied to ?registered members?. How ?
Quorum at Members general meeting is set as follow:
======
ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising:
a) Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region;
b) One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and
c) Five (5) Resource Members.
==========
So five (5) registered members in person are required.
With nine (9) registered members in total and a quorum requirement of five (5) members in person how many proxies can a registered member carry to a valid AGMM ?
The limit to ?5? means ?no limit for the registered members? and that complies to the act.
Hope this helps
?Alain
On Oct 2, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com%3cmailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
Mirriam,
I was speaking in my personal capacity ? firstly - and I stand by my right to do that.
Secondly ? What was the point? Let me tell you a story ? In Djibouti there was an attempt to block several proxies using an argument of company stamps. That argument went on for many days ? it was eventually invalidated ? because it was determined that it would disenfranchise the members who had no company stamps and was invalid. However, it was a direct attempt to stop certain things through the change of the rules (well, that is my impression).
I take serious issue with this statement specifically:
One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue.
You cannot ignore the act ? I am not a lawyer ? my reading of the act is in laymans terms ? and there are many lawyers that can contradict what I?m saying and I?m ok with that. I was NOT arguing from the perspective of proxies here ? look at the holistic essence of my email ? the only place I referenced proxies was as a specific example of how the companies act can restrict the bylaws from overriding it.
What I was saying is that leaving the act out of an argument about the bylaws doesn?t make sense and is ? in my view ? irresponsible. The act is supreme and overriding, and ignoring it can have serious consequences.
I stand by the position that ignoring the law is dangerous.
Andrew
From: Mirriam <mirriamlauren at yahoo.com<mailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com<mailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com%3cmailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com>>>
Reply-To: Mirriam <mirriamlauren at yahoo.com<mailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com<mailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com%3cmailto:mirriamlauren at yahoo.com>>>
Date: Sunday, 2 October 2016 at 10:36
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com%3cmailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
On 1 Oct 2016 19:07, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com%3cmailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
>
> Alain,
>
> Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible.
>
>
Hi Andrew,
You need to calm down. No one here is naive or irresponsible so mind how you respond to others and have some respect else Afrinic code of conduct comes into play and i hope the CEO and Chair will caution you.
In fact your message is full of exaggeration. What exactly is your point considering following this discussion you seem to have jumped arguments from company bylaws to company act?
Everyone herein is well aware that our " Afrinic is a private company registered in Mauritius with a Community Oversight through its Bylaws and remains a community/resource members driven organisation" otherwise we would not all be here deliberating on how to improve the organisation.
You are one of the directors elected to the board to respresent the very resource members who elected you and as such you are answerable to us just as all the other directors who the membership sends to the board.
So what exactly is your point with that long email as what was being discussed was plain simple proxy limits?
Mirriam
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/025720f2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:10:26 -0600
From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com<mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<CA+DdLrTAA2ofk1e3sBvQs8CBZwjJqRYZ-1nKdh_LxS4MgGw0rg at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CA+DdLrTAA2ofk1e3sBvQs8CBZwjJqRYZ-1nKdh_LxS4MgGw0rg at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
> Writing in my personal capacity.
>
> Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless
> explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a
> director.
Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity?
> What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider
> board views and should the board be taking a position on something it will
> be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that
> responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my words
> as the words of the board.
You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said
here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly
irresponsible."
You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good.
It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air
their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant
you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way?
Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It
has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director
of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please
please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can
deliver the same message in a respectful way.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:25:14 +0000
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
To: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com<mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<AMSPR03MB53488A6A9DD33E0B3E91E06EEC20 at AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com<mailto:AMSPR03MB53488A6A9DD33E0B3E91E06EEC20 at AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Jackson,
Again, let me clarify my use of wording:
Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth.
Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such:
(of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do.
If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them.
It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement.
Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line:
> One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue.
So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety.
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com]
Sent: 03 October 2016 13:10
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net<mailto:aalain at trstech.net>>; General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
> Writing in my personal capacity.
>
> Firstly, let me point out that anything I write on this list ? unless
> explicitly stated ? is written in my personal capacity and not as a
> director.
Why are you disrespectful of others in your personal capacity?
> What I write here is not necessarily representative of the wider board
> views and should the board be taking a position on something it will
> be communicated as such via the chairperson or someone delegated that
> responsibility by the board. So please, let us not mis-interpret my
> words as the words of the board.
You said wrote to Alain " Quite frankly ? I think what you have said here is, at best, extremely naive and at worst incredibly irresponsible."
You use this kind of language most of the time and this is not good.
It is intimidating to new people trying to join discussion and air their opinion and is clear expression of an autocratic mind. Why cant you tolerate and maturely engage in a respectful way?
Alain say he respects AfriNIC directors and you are one of them. It has nothing to do with your personal views. You are still a Director of AfriNIC and an important person in your other capacities. Please please just be mindful of peoples feelings and use euphemisms that can deliver the same message in a respectful way.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:34:22 +0300
From: "L.A. Ym" <landriam at ymail.com<mailto:landriam at ymail.com>>
To: "Boubakar Barry" <Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net<mailto:Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net>>, "General Discussions
of AFRINIC" <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Cc: members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability
assessment- bylaws changes
Message-ID: <1C9E2EFFD30E451182FA79832E2A1C8B at toshiba>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
+1
Agree with Boubakar
Lala
From: Boubakar Barry
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:44 AM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC
Cc: members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com<mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com<mailto:ondouglas at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued
> deliberation on amendments of the bylaws.
>
> Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I
> was, and still I am opposed to the idea of rescinding the Associate Members
> rights to vote.
>
> Rationale: when an Associate Member is stripped of the right to vote,
> he/she is in reality as empowered -- or un-empowered -- as the rest of the
> AFRINIC community. AFRINIC would effectively be asking Associate members and
> prospects to fork out Associate Membership fees, but offering nothing over
> and above "AFRINIC community" status, which poses at least two problems:
> First, NO ONE of sound mind, with full understanding of these facts, would
> want to be an Associate members, and secondly, AFRINIC would be out-rightly
> fleecing its members by charging membership fees and providing no value in
> return, neither one of which is desirable.
>
> Therefore, the Associate Membership category should be imbued with voting
> rights -- or some other value add that is codified in the bylaws, barring
> which the category should effectively be expunged from the bylaws.
+1
If any tier is named "member", such as "associate member"; such tier
MUST be given voting rights. Absent of this - it would be a useless
membership status. Why be a member of an establishment that cannot let
one exercise a simple right like a vote to enable effect change?
Let associate members vote or get rid of this membership tier. Simple.
Not sure it's as simple as that.
Do we want to encourage people/organisations to be be associate members just because of granted voting rights that have the potential of affecting resource members only?
I know of organisations in which members are happy to be non-voting associate members because it gives them opportunities to contribute financially to the sustainability of these organisations, without benefiting from core services. Just because they share values of these organisations and want to support them.
We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead.
B.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net<mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net>>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 10 June, I posted a document describing potential areas for improvement
>> in the Bylaws as a result of an accountability assessment. I invited the
>> community and membership to comment on these issues.
>>
>> I have considered the discussion, and I have asked the legal adviser to
>> draft appropriate changes to the bylaws. In some cases, I have edited the
>> legal adviser?s text. In some cases, more drafting work is needed and
>> proposed text of bylaws changes is not yet available.
>>
>> I attach a document with the proposed bylaws changes.
>>
>> Alan Barrett
>> CEO, AFRINIC
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
> UG: +256 776 716 138
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Members-Discuss mailing list
Members-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160919/7e91813f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:43:47 +0000
From: Ben Roberts <Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com>>
To: ALAIN AINA <Alain.Aina at wacren.net<mailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>,
"members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net>" <members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability
assessment - bylaws changes
Message-ID: <F8EC20AA-3E02-4978-9F15-CF872BF8CFA6 at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:F8EC20AA-3E02-4978-9F15-CF872BF8CFA6 at liquidtelecom.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
While we debate what consensus means I maybe have lost the thread of what we were looking for consensus on. ?
There was something about associate members and if they should have voting rights I recall?
Associate member category is really for interested parties who want to 'join in' but not be part of things properly and pay the full fees and use the services. So maybe it might include research partners, people who want to come along to our meetings and present and sell us stuff, etc etc
So no. The associate member category should not have the same voting benefits as a LIR member.
Sent from my iPhone
On 20 Sep 2016, at 11:24 PM, ALAIN AINA <Alain.Aina at wacren.net<mailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net<mailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net%3cmailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com%3cmailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
Ok,
We need to stop for a moment and look at reality ? not wishful thinking.
Firstly ? I am hearing talk of rough consensus ? and while consensus is applicable in many areas, I am far from convinced this is one of them. The ONLY place consensus has in this regard is to get a vague indication of which way the vote may go on a particular issue. However, you can get total consensus on this list and beyond ? and still stand a good chance of things not passing.
Why is this ? consensus is defined as being reached when all substantive objections have been addressed. However, a substantive objection has to have meaning, that is to say, there is some validity in what people are objecting to. And those can all be addressed, but when the non-substantive, the illogical, the uninformed, the emotional, or whatever, arguments come into it ? those cannot be taken into account in consensus. However, to accept or reject bylaw changes is not done by consensus. It is done by *super majority* vote.
So, get all the consensus you like, you have a VAGUE indication ? but nothing more than that ? because if people on the day go ?I don?t like this, and it?s not worth arguing about, so I will simply argue with my vote?, and they vote no, things still won?t pass.
Until we amend the bylaws(as suggested by point 11 of the CEO document [ Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution]), the ?Super Majority? you are referring to means "Super Majority of the registered members (the current Board members)". So the board could easily amend the bylaws without involving the community if it is only the voting which matter.
By involving the community, one expects that we listen to community, helps the community build consensus on the amendments and then adopt them by the "Super Majority".
This community only makes decision by Rough Consensus and does not vote. Voting is for the members who are the "Registered members".
So, let me now talk about committees ? for what purpose? So that the ?committee? can propose something and people just accept it? So that the ?committee? can judge consensus somehow better than one person? So the ?committee? can take all the inputs and collate them into some nice document better than one person can?
Yes and also lead the consensus building.
It is also important to note that while amending bylaws to improve accountability is it not advisable that ?Only" interested parties (CEO, board..) lead the process.
Guess what ? it?s all meaningless ? because at the end of the day ? no matter who proposes, no matter what form ? if members like the PRINCIPLE behind the change, they will vote in favor of it. If they don?t, no matter who proposes it, they will vote against it. And committees, individuals, whatever, it?s all meaningless if on the day, the *SUPER MAJORITY VOTE* does not pass. That means for every 1 vote that is cast against, there must be 3 votes for. This is not a feel good game ? this is the law. In the same way, any individual can bring something to the floor and once its n the notice of meeting while it can be discussed on the floor, the resolution *CANNOT BE CHANGED* other than basic minor edits ? it can only be withdrawn.
Yes ? I like the idea of consensus to gauge what may or may not pass ? and I believe that is what Alan has been trying to gauge before putting things to the floor.
End of the day though ?it?s a nice idea, but has zero impact on the outcome.
Not sure. We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work smoothly
Hope this helps
?Alain
Andrew
From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com%3cmailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>>
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net><mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net%3e>" <members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes
+1 @Alain
Regards
Arnaud
2016-09-19 19:56 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA <Alain.Aina at wacren.net<mailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net<mailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net%3cmailto:Alain.Aina at wacren.net>>>:
Hi,
Let?s fix the process and better organise this critical review of the bylawsl. I do support the idea of a committee .
?Alain
On Sep 19, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian <christianbope at gmail.com<mailto:christianbope at gmail.com<mailto:christianbope at gmail.com%3cmailto:christianbope at gmail.com>>> wrote:
Dear CEO,
[speaking as a member of the community]
Following last week discussion on the accountability review and others points raised by the community which was not in your original document, here my response.
1. On the Accountability Review.
This review is from an independent AFRINIC's accountability review which identified areas need to be improved. Improving RIR accountability is very important in this context of IANA stewardship transition where the community will be exercising important role in the oversight of the IANA functions.
So it is very crucial that the community gives this discussion the required attention and the consensual approach is more needed.
It will be unfortunate if we did not follow these important improvements due to lack of consensus.
2. on the Process
It was expected that the community discuss, express view and concern thereafter the Leadership will do his best effort to build consensus. Consensus here is strictly in the sense of RIR practices mean The Rough Consensus Model [1].
Ideally, people shall be encourage to comment on the list for the sake of archive and off list contribution should be discouraged and not accepted.
That why some members of the community suggested the creation of a committee to lead the process.
3. On the discussion.
Community has expressed views on each points. As expected there were convergences and divergences. For example, points 3,4, 5 had active and intensive discussions while reading may sound like profound disagreement. We shall now entire to the consensus building mode by opening the disagreement views and addressing one by one then we'll build ROUGH CONSENSUS.
Another example, on point 11, there was no objection, but some suggestions even propose more such as "Registered Members only MUST never amend the bylaws, ..." and The proposed amendment should be published not less than 60 days and not more than 90 days before, with the provisions for more members to comment online and in any meeting held during the consultation period"
4. On the other points.
Beyond the 12 points, some areas of improvements were suggested.
For example, https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html lists some of the points
[1] https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/rir-accountability on section 1.4
Regards,
Bope
On 19 September 2016 at 17:03, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com%3cmailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>> wrote:
I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below.
Thanks
Andrew
From: Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com<mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com%3cmailto:silber.mike at gmail.com>>>
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net><mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net%3e>" <members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:members-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes
On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry <Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net<mailto:Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net<mailto:Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net%3cmailto:Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net>>> wrote:
?
We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead.
Boubakar +1
_______________________________________________
Members-Discuss mailing list
Members-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net>>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Members-Discuss mailing list
Members-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net%3cmailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net>>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160920/f6029e73/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:50 +0300
From: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com>>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>,
afnog <afnog at afnog.org<mailto:afnog at afnog.org>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe
Message-ID:
<CAKX6dsFOUjyiir0EYju-NvnbzRvAxAJa1V9T6U83hfwHf4jbTA at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAKX6dsFOUjyiir0EYju-NvnbzRvAxAJa1V9T6U83hfwHf4jbTA at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Well done Andrew and Liquid,
Way to go, where next?:-)
Regards
On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to
> both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in
> what follows.
>
> Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are
> now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after
> our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>
> We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that
> particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic
> was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long
> distance international links from Europe.
>
> On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every
> static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we
> sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long
> update to process in one go.
>
> So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly
> say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>
> I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2
> or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see
> as the updates happen.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
--
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254733206359
Skype: barrack.otieno
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:49:09 +0530
From: ARTHUR CARINDAL <arthur at afrinic.net<mailto:arthur at afrinic.net>>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>,
afnog <afnog at afnog.org<mailto:afnog at afnog.org>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe
Message-ID: <78A43B26-660D-4B1A-94D5-339715D6ED62 at afrinic.net<mailto:78A43B26-660D-4B1A-94D5-339715D6ED62 at afrinic.net>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Andrew
We did appreciate your collaboration. And once again, well done!
Regards
_______________________________________________________________
Arthur Carindal N.
Head of Member Services, AFRINIC Ltd.
t: +230 403 5100 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net<http://www.afrinic.net<http://www.afrinic.net%3chttp:/www.afrinic.net>> <http://www.afrinic.net/>
facebook.com/afrinic <http://facebook.com/afrinic> | flickr.com/afrinic <http://flickr.com/afrinic> | youtube.com/afrinicmedia <http://youtube.com/afrinicmedia>
_______________________________________________________________
Join us for the AFRINIC-25 meeting in Mauritius, 25 to 30 November 2016
> On 29 Sep 2016, at 10:39 AM, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in what follows.
>
> Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>
> We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long distance international links from Europe.
>
> On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long update to process in one go.
>
> So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>
> I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see as the updates happen.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> afnog mailing list
> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog <https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160929/c87427dc/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:50:07 +0400
From: Musa Stephen Honlue <honlue at gmail.com<mailto:honlue at gmail.com>>
To: Barrack Otieno <otieno.barrack at gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net>>,
afnog <afnog at afnog.org<mailto:afnog at afnog.org>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe
Message-ID:
<CAJrNOvH3nLKNXmUJHsyiTXy=p1cyCWDsXs4Y4pnWwQ6kHWsDaA at mail.gmail.com<mailto:CAJrNOvH3nLKNXmUJHsyiTXy=p1cyCWDsXs4Y4pnWwQ6kHWsDaA at mail.gmail.com>>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Well done.
On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno" <otieno.barrack at gmail.com<mailto:otieno.barrack at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Well done Andrew and Liquid,
>
> Way to go, where next?:-)
>
>
> Regards
>
> On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross
> posting to
> > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in
> > what follows.
> >
> > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There
> are
> > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> > native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase
> after
> > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
> >
> > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in
> that
> > particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that
> traffic
> > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long
> > distance international links from Europe.
> >
> > On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and
> every
> > static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we
> > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> > update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a
> long
> > update to process in one go.
> >
> > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now
> proudly
> > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
> >
> > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the
> next 2
> > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and
> see
> > as the updates happen.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Barrack O. Otieno
> +254721325277
> +254733206359
> Skype: barrack.otieno
> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
>
> _______________________________________________
> afnog mailing list
> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160929/db88f8d7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:48:59 +0300
From: "Miku, E. Cornelius" <miku.ec at gmail.com>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>,
afnog <afnog at afnog.org>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe
Message-ID:
<CAOx2ZBDp=wz7UiSa5jV1HBHGLzNS8AjUSL6R1O9GNa43pogRGQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Interesting news in deed.
Congrats Andrew and Team. And AfriNIC.
Regards,
--
Miku
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting
> to both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums
> in what follows.
>
>
>
> Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There
> are now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase
> after our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>
>
>
> We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that
> particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic
> was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long
> distance international links from Europe.
>
>
>
> On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every
> static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we
> sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a
> long update to process in one go.
>
>
>
> So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now
> proudly say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>
>
>
> I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next
> 2 or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and
> see as the updates happen.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> afnog mailing list
> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20160929/909208bb/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:29:38 +0400
From: Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden at gmail.com>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>,
afnog <afnog at afnog.org>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe
Message-ID:
<CAOp4FwSkNiLX=fnmoWbLRrhEF=oaz3GfBVcViqRChN323b5E1g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> So, let another exciting announcement ? I apologize for the cross posting to
> both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in
> what follows.
>
>
>
> Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe. There are
> now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> native IPv6 ? and they are actively using it. This was the next phase after
> our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>
>
>
> We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that
> particular location ? and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic
> was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering ? it did NOT come via long
> distance international links from Europe.
>
>
>
> On the AFRINIC side ? we followed the policy and registered each and every
> static customer assignment in the whois database ? it held up well as we
> sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> update ? my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long
> update to process in one go.
>
>
>
> So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready ? we can now proudly
> say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>
>
>
> I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2
> or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up. Let?s wait and see
> as the updates happen.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
Hi Andrew,
Congratulations, what is the particular model for the CPE ?
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 04:41:46 -0600
From: Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<CA+DdLrTDvvUsB+=D4KVz6Szh1_f+0yssp0cG5n5ev=jpf28Wdg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 4:25 AM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> Jackson,
>
> Again, let me clarify my use of wording:
>
> Firstly - do I believe that it is irresponsible when I believe that someone is advocating for ignoring the law. Yes - I do, and my opinions my offend some, but I will not be limited in what I say because it may tread on toes if I believe what I am saying is the truth.
>
> Secondly - when I use the word na?ve, let's look at the definition of such:
>
> (of a person or action) showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgment.
>
> Do I believe that it is unwise to advocate for ignoring the act? Yes I do.
>
> If my stating that I believe these things offends someone - then I apologise for offense caused. I do not however apologise for stating them.
>
> It is a fine line we tread - where often the truth of a matter is disputed, and in taking any position, you are quite likely to offend someone who disagrees with your position, particularly when the position you are taking is taken in an unequivocal manner. In this case, I was unequivocal, it is my sincere and utmost believe that ignoring any text is unwise, reckless, irresponsible and shows a lack of judgement.
>
> Again, as I stated in what I said to Mirriam, the section to which I was referring to was one specific line:
>
>> One would expect the debate to stay at the community level and not involve the Act. The community to discuss and agree on how to manage this issue.
>
> So - if I offended people through the choice of words - apologies. For the sentiment behind those words - those I stand by in entirety.
For the record I agree with the principles behind your argument.
You could however use a better choice of words to avoid annoying
people and deliver the same message politely and respectfully. Yes I
know what naive and irresponsible mean. When dealing with fellow
adults and professionals those words are mostly inappropriate.
The intent behind which Alain stated his arguments was not a bad one.
You cannot call him naive and irresponsible because your viewpoint and
his did not align. Simply make known civilly (and calmly) your
viewpoint. He will then be more open to understanding yours.
--
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 15:03:05 +0400
From: Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID: <84611736-F109-4BE6-9FC9-4ED7A1290EF8 at afrinic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Dear Andrew,
I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions.
Alan Barrett
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:12:11 +0000
From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
To: Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<AMSPR03MB534337F8881187704E235B4EEC20 at AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252
Alan,
Again, and this will be my last word on the subject -
I have very strong opinions on what was stated in that line that I have quoted in my previous two emails on this subject. These are opinions, and I believe that the sentiment that I wished to convey was that the words used could have ramifications and were dangerous. If someone can give me a more diplomatic way to convey the same sentiment - I'm more than happy to hear it - many times my words are designed to convey a sentiment and unfortunately cause offense - happy to learn new words - so long as the sentiment behind the words remains the same :)
Andrew
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net]
Sent: 03 October 2016 14:03
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Dear Andrew,
I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions.
Alan Barrett
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:19:49 +0000
From: Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at gmail.com>
To: Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
Message-ID:
<CAGrBSSh_gVSusMuyEwkBEpaxV+9=kXRyr0GKK0L+KiwHiTc+1g at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I don't think it's about diplomacy; it's rather about politeness and
maturity.
Boubakar
On Monday, 3 October 2016, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> wrote:
> Dear Andrew,
>
> I ask that you use more diplomatic words to express your opinions.
>
> Alan Barrett
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <javascript:;>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/d5f1ceec/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
------------------------------
End of Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 68, Issue 1
************************************************
Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?.
Ce message et toutes les pi?ces jointes (ci-apr?s le "message") sont confidentiels et ?tablis ? l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autoris?e est interdite. Tout message ?lectronique est susceptible d'alt?ration, par cons?quent l'ARTCI d?cline toute responsabilit? au titre de ce message s'il a ?t? alt?r?, d?form? ou falsifi?.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/9004b581/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OutlookEmoji-cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1652 bytes
Desc: OutlookEmoji-cid:image001.jpg at 01D071F4.5E155680.png
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/9004b581/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OutlookEmoji-logo-artci-test.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6922 bytes
Desc: OutlookEmoji-logo-artci-test.png
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/9004b581/attachment-0003.png>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:41:06 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" <members-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
changes
Message-ID: <6AD995EB-CC30-4CCC-9381-8CD2581F3317 at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I agree with Boubakar here. I think that granting associate membership voting rights is an invitation to organizational capture.
Consider the relatively low voting participation as it stands (IIRC, the last time I was involved in counting an AfriNIC election,
there were fewer than 200 total votes (possibly less than 100)).
Consider that $300/year gets an individual an associate membership in AfriNIC. Even if we assume a 1 year delay to voting,
then 200 * 2 * 300 = $120,000. If a company really wanted to seize control of an AfriNIC election, I do not think that it would
beard to come up with $120,000 and 200 individuals willing to vote accordingly.
I think limiting voting to those that hold internet number resources makes sense because they are the
true stakeholders in the services provided by the organization.
Owen
> On Sep 18, 2016, at 2:44 PM, Boubakar Barry <Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com <mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com <mailto:ondouglas at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> > Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued
> > deliberation on amendments of the bylaws.
> >
> > Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I
> > was, and still I am opposed to the idea of rescinding the Associate Members
> > rights to vote.
> >
> > Rationale: when an Associate Member is stripped of the right to vote,
> > he/she is in reality as empowered -- or un-empowered -- as the rest of the
> > AFRINIC community. AFRINIC would effectively be asking Associate members and
> > prospects to fork out Associate Membership fees, but offering nothing over
> > and above "AFRINIC community" status, which poses at least two problems:
> > First, NO ONE of sound mind, with full understanding of these facts, would
> > want to be an Associate members, and secondly, AFRINIC would be out-rightly
> > fleecing its members by charging membership fees and providing no value in
> > return, neither one of which is desirable.
> >
> > Therefore, the Associate Membership category should be imbued with voting
> > rights -- or some other value add that is codified in the bylaws, barring
> > which the category should effectively be expunged from the bylaws.
>
> +1
>
> If any tier is named "member", such as "associate member"; such tier
> MUST be given voting rights. Absent of this - it would be a useless
> membership status. Why be a member of an establishment that cannot let
> one exercise a simple right like a vote to enable effect change?
>
> Let associate members vote or get rid of this membership tier. Simple.
>
>
> Not sure it's as simple as that.
>
> Do we want to encourage people/organisations to be be associate members just because of granted voting rights that have the potential of affecting resource members only?
>
> I know of organisations in which members are happy to be non-voting associate members because it gives them opportunities to contribute financially to the sustainability of these organisations, without benefiting from core services. Just because they share values of these organisations and want to support them.
>
> We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this membership category instead.
>
> B.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net <mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net>>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10 June, I posted a document describing potential areas for improvement
> >> in the Bylaws as a result of an accountability assessment. I invited the
> >> community and membership to comment on these issues.
> >>
> >> I have considered the discussion, and I have asked the legal adviser to
> >> draft appropriate changes to the bylaws. In some cases, I have edited the
> >> legal adviser?s text. In some cases, more drafting work is needed and
> >> proposed text of bylaws changes is not yet available.
> >>
> >> I attach a document with the proposed bylaws changes.
> >>
> >> Alan Barrett
> >> CEO, AFRINIC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Community-Discuss mailing list
> >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
> > UG: +256 776 716 138
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Community-Discuss mailing list
> > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/5ae26429/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:48:52 -0700
From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws
changes
Message-ID: <446DE42F-EF68-4EED-AF03-098F8B42C293 at delong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:08 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
>
>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Alan,
>>
>> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we end up having 4 directors from a region.
>
> I don?t think that?s an accountability issue. Even in the unlikely event that there are four from the same sub-region (regional director, two non-regional directors, and CEO), and that the four conspire together to advance some sort of sub-regional interest that?s against AFRINIC?s interest, the four would still not form a majority of the Board.
They could, however, easily form a majority of quorum at a meeting where two directors are absent and depending on the particular voting rules of the board when 7 members and the CEO are present, possibly even one absence would be sufficient.
> Instead of legislating geographical diversity in the Bylaws, I would prefer to rely on the membership to consider all kinds of diversity when voting.
I agree with this.
> Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority. Would adding geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support to pass?
I?m actually not sure how you would reliably enforce such a provision in a fair and equitable manner. For example, if due to resignation, both non-geographic seats came available at the same time, would you limit to one candidate per region? If not, then what if the vote result had an equal number of votes for two candidates from the same region and they had the most votes? Which candidate would you disqualify in favor of the third-place candidate?
Owen
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 18:48:23 +0000
From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability
assessment - bylaws changes
Message-ID:
<CAGDMR_ekLT1J5r28+TM3t=hdmki5-LPSAt9jxJDA-sCGdg17Fg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi CEO, nomcom chair,
We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for
elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated
which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any
reason for this?
Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC,
why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not
used for the GC.
Regards
Arnaud
Le 26 sept. 2016 18:31, "Alan Barrett" <alan.barrett at afrinic.net> a ?crit :
>
> > On 26 Sep 2016, at 21:00, Benjamin Eshun <benjamin.eshun at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it?s true that a committee of 5 members cannot include a
> representative from all 6 sub-regions. I don?t see that as a problem.
> >
> > I see alot of problems with the practical implementation this.
> >
> > 1. My first problem is which region is to be left out and what happens
> when the more than one person come from a particular region.
>
> Of the five voting members on the GC, two are appointed by the Board, and
> three are elected by the AFRINIC Membership. The two appointed by the
> Board must come from two different sub-regions. The three elected by the
> membership must come from three different sub-regions. However, nothing
> in the charter prevents the same region from being represented both within
> the Board-appointed and the Membership-elected subsets of the GC. The
> regional requirements in the charter are to ensure that a single region can
> never dominate the votes.
>
> > 2. Will the Board appoint it's members for/from a particular region and
> leave the other regions to the community. In this case which regions will
> the rest of the community nominate GC members and which will be done first.
>
> If the Board appoints somebody from a particular sub-region, that does not
> prevent the Membership from electing another person from the same
> sub-region, or vice versa.
>
> Does it matter which is first? I expect that the Board would listen to
> advice about that.
>
> > 3. What selection mechanism will be used to guarantee the regional
> diversity.
>
> NomCom is asking for nominations from all 6 sub-regions. The voting
> process has not been finalised, but what I suggested to NomCom was:
>
> 1. The candidate with the most votes is elected for a three-year term;
> 2. All other candidates from the same sub-region are eliminated;
> 3. The remaining candidate with the next highest number of votes is
> elected for a two-year term;
> 4. All other candidates from the same sub-region are eliminated;
> 5. The remaining candidate with the next highest number of votes is
> elected for a one-year term;
>
> This will guarantee that the three Membership-elected members of the GC
> come from three different sub-regions.
>
> In the future, assuming nothing unusual happens, one candidate will need
> to be elected every year for a three-year term.
>
> 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: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161003/abbc64a4/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 07:56:48 +0400
From: Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability
assessment - bylaws changes
Message-ID: <542448B8-8FAA-44BB-BC73-EE13A00C8163 at afrinic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> On 3 Oct 2016, at 22:48, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi CEO, nomcom chair,
>
> We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any reason for this?
I?ll let NomCom answer that, if they choose to, but let me ask you: Why do you think that NomCom should impose criteria? Do you think that the membership is not capable of making their own decisions about how to vote?
> Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC, why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not used for the GC.
COE members are eligible to be elected to the Governance Committee by the AFRINIC Membership. They are not eligible to be appointed to the Governance Committee by the Board.
Alan Barrett
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 10:32:58 +0000
From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>
To: Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability
assessment - bylaws changes
Message-ID:
<CAGDMR_c+L3BZnfV7p5Wg58JaSfY=iXnmC1V5vncQWUVSsfVepg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise and
skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some criteria and
allow nomcom to add others.
And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate the
candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the public
comment?
Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by mere vote, what is the
role of nomcom?
Regards
Arnaud
2016-10-04 3:56 GMT+00:00 Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>:
>
> > On 3 Oct 2016, at 22:48, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi CEO, nomcom chair,
> >
> > We are reading the GC call for nominations and see a procedure for
> elections. There is however no requirements, criteria or experience stated
> which is surprising as this is to do with a governance committee. Any
> reason for this?
>
> I?ll let NomCom answer that, if they choose to, but let me ask you: Why do
> you think that NomCom should impose criteria? Do you think that the
> membership is not capable of making their own decisions about how to vote?
>
> > Furthermore and once again, why are COE members not allowed to join GC,
> why COE could not appoint a nominee to GC or for that matter why COE not
> used for the GC.
>
> COE members are eligible to be elected to the Governance Committee by the
> AFRINIC Membership. They are not eligible to be appointed to the
> Governance Committee by the Board.
>
> 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: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161004/81a599e7/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 14:50:27 +0400
From: Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability
assessment - bylaws changes
Message-ID: <8A5B941C-B293-4393-ACF2-67E239659D90 at afrinic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On 4 Oct 2016, at 14:32, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It appears to me that such a committee requires certain expertise and skills just like board. For the board, the bylaws has some criteria and allow nomcom to add others.
Yes, NomCom may add criteria beyond what?s in the Governance Committee charter. They appear to have decided not to do so. I don?t know whether they had particular reasons, but somebody from NomCom is free to comment.
> And if there is no requirement, on what basis will nomcom evaluate the candidates? How will community comment on candidates during the public comment?
> Or if there is no evaluation and members decide by mere vote, what is the role of nomcom?
NomCom?s role in Governance Committee elections is as similar as possible to their role in Board elections, as given in section 9 of the Bylaws. They have significant freedom in how they perform their task.
When commenting on the suitability of any nominee or candidate, I would hope that people consider the role of the Governanc Committee as given in its charter, and the person?s ability to perform in such a role.
Alan Barrett
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
------------------------------
End of Community-Discuss Digest, Vol 69, Issue 1
************************************************
Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes (ci-après le "message") sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération, par conséquent l'ARTCI décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altèré, déformé ou falsifié.
Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes (ci-après le "message") sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération, par conséquent l'ARTCI décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altèré, déformé ou falsifié.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161004/d2852d3e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1652 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161004/d2852d3e/attachment-0001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6921 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161004/d2852d3e/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the Community-Discuss
mailing list