From silber.mike at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 09:32:39 2016 From: silber.mike at gmail.com (Mike Silber) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:32:39 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Diversity in ICANN (was Re: [members-discuss] Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN 2016 ...) In-Reply-To: <57C6EE57.12428.6047EF1@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> References: <20160831014315.M39128@sdnp.org.mw> <941811040.2741941.1472648716989@mail.yahoo.com> <9CDC129D-7020-414D-B360-9FA492126B5C@gmail.com> <57C6EE57.12428.6047EF1@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: <49200A39-8BDA-44CB-937B-6AF518A35749@gmail.com> Paulos > On 31 Aug 2016, at 16:48, Dr Paulos B Nyirenda wrote: > > Walu, Mike, > > Although racial diversity is a well recognised form of diversity, academically or otherwise, that > is not the lever that I want to go down to in this case for ICANN Board Members, I am talking > about regional diversity as defined in the ICANN system I think the issue is that regional diversity is not defined in the ICANN system in the manner you are suggesting. (Actually, I think the only system that goes that route is the UN system, of one representative of every government of every country and then political jockeying for leadership positions.) Now I think there may be merit in bringing that subtle distinction to the attention of the ICANN community and trying to create awareness that regional diversity is not just at a continental level, but also intra-continental. This is what a multi-stakeholder process is all about, raising awareness, doing the work, making proposals, getting support from others for your views and effecting change. It is NOT throwing rocks over the wall and then ducking - especially if you are throwing rocks at the Nominating Committee (who have done a pretty good job IMO) and in so doing are also indirectly imputing two very fine individuals. > > I am not instigating for a quota other than what is already in the bylaws BUT I am asking for > some reasonablenes in aclaimed ICANN diversity which I do not see in the current NomCom > selection, that is the observation that I am making. > So let us look at some issues diversity that you seem to ignore: * 19 elected or selected board members and post October only *THREE* women. 15% when women make up 51% of the population; * post-October, there will not be anyone of the board of Chinese origin (about 1,5 billion people); * no-one from the sub-continent on the board (though there are with origin or ancestry ties, but no-one living in the sub-continent - about 1,8 billion people); * three Africans (population of about 1,1 billion) of whom two live there permanently; * only one person from the LAC (Latin America and the Caribbean) region on the board and he is from Central America (so South America, the Caribbean and Portuguese speakers have no representation) (about 0,7 billion people); * quite a few Europeans, but none from Southern or Eastern Europe. So the ICANN board has a slew of diversity issues. I would suggest that the ?blackness? of the Africans or the under-representation of certain parts of Africa is worth considering but not the biggest issue we face. Please also remember that the Nominating Committee is selecting for both skills and diversity. There has to be a mix, you cannot have people selected with limited or incompatible skills, simply to be more diverse. As pointed out previously - the way to deal with that is to get more SOIs from the very many well qualified and suitably skilled people in our region through to the NomCom as well as the SOs and ACs. So I am fully supportive of doing work on diversity and as Dr Lisse has pointed out, there is an opportunity to engage now in the WS2 work to have your views aired. What I cannot abide is criticism without any indication of solutions or work being proposed. > So, like Walu, I am partly attracted to the ICANN system partly because it tries to be > adequately representative on the global scene The ICANN board is *NOT* a representative forum. I was appointed by the ccNSO, however if do not *REPRESENT* the ccNSO on the board. I think you miss the point of the multistakeholder model. It is focussed on contribution and not representation. Anyone from anywhere can (in theory) contribute. To improve it, we need to focus on making sure that voices are heard from areas which whose voices were not previously heard (like women, developing countries, users). There needs to be focus on diversity of views, *NOT* being representative. Personally, I think if you want representation, then you need to go to the ITU. Mike From noah at neo.co.tz Sat Sep 3 16:19:06 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2016 19:19:06 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN 2016 Nominating Committee Announces Selections - unfortunate Africa distribution In-Reply-To: <20160831014315.M39128@sdnp.org.mw> References: <20160831014315.M39128@sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: On 31 Aug 2016 04:45, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" wrote: > > On 30 Aug 2016 at 15:50, Yaovi Atohoun wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Please read more about the NomCom announcement > > at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-08-29-en > > I see it as unfortunate that both ICANN board members from the Africa region in this > ICANN NomCom selection come from North Africa. > > As long us they serve the African cause globally, I dont see a problem. If they end up being incopitent to our disavantage us a continent, we shall deal with the disappointment then. For now, I congraculate the 2 candidates and I hope they serve us well. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Sep 5 04:38:19 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 04:38:19 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN 2016 Nominating Committee Announces Selections - unfortunate Africa distribution In-Reply-To: References: <20160831014315.M39128@sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: <0CD257F0-7225-4A8C-97D3-BF2667C21409@liquidtelecom.com> +1 Noah, Andrew From: Noah Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Date: Saturday, 3 September 2016 at 7:19 PM To: Dr Paulos B Nyirenda , AfrICANN list Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC , AfriNIC Discuss , "aftld-members at aftld.org" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN 2016 Nominating Committee Announces Selections - unfortunate Africa distribution On 31 Aug 2016 04:45, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" > wrote: > > On 30 Aug 2016 at 15:50, Yaovi Atohoun wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Please read more about the NomCom announcement > > at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-08-29-en > > I see it as unfortunate that both ICANN board members from the Africa region in this > ICANN NomCom selection come from North Africa. > > As long us they serve the African cause globally, I dont see a problem. If they end up being incopitent to our disavantage us a continent, we shall deal with the disappointment then. For now, I congraculate the 2 candidates and I hope they serve us well. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From olanimrod at gmail.com Thu Sep 1 09:29:17 2016 From: olanimrod at gmail.com (Nimrod Ola) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:29:17 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [AfrICANN-discuss] ICANN 2016 Nominating Committee Announces Selections - unfortunate Africa distribution In-Reply-To: <5AFA684E-FA1A-4F09-881C-8AEA769E0129@blacknight.com> References: <20160831014315.M39128@sdnp.org.mw> <5AFA684E-FA1A-4F09-881C-8AEA769E0129@blacknight.com> Message-ID: @Paulos +1 Le 31 ao?t 2016 12:29, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" a ?crit : > Paulos > > Unless you can prove that the NomCom didn?t pick eligible qualified > candidates from the region who applied I don?t understand what you are > complaining about. > > You should be congratulating the candidates who were selected instead of > trying to find issues with the selection. > > Regards > > Michele > > > -- > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting, Colocation & Domains > http://www.blacknight.host/ > http://blacknight.blog/ > http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage > http://www.technology.ie > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Social: http://mneylon.social > Random Stuff: http://michele.irish > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > > On 31/08/2016, 02:48, "Dr Paulos Nyirenda" wrote: > > On 30 Aug 2016 at 15:50, Yaovi Atohoun wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > Please read more about the NomCom announcement > > at https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-08-29-en > > I see it as unfortunate that both ICANN board members from the Africa > region in this > ICANN NomCom selection come from North Africa. > > I see it as loss of geographic diversity as well as loss of diversity > in community > representation in this selection and in the resulting ICANN Board > representation. > > I do not blame this on North Africa, the rest of Africa simply needs > to push for and > move forward into occupying such positions and NomCom needs to look > out for such > disparities. > > It is my hope that this unfortunate ICANN Board distribution is not > because there were > no good applicants from the rest of Africa, did the ICANN NomCom fail > to attract good > enough candidates from the rest of Africa? > > Regards, > > Paulos > ====================== > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > http://www.registrar.mw > > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/africann > > > > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/africann > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From michele at blacknight.com Thu Sep 1 09:49:12 2016 From: michele at blacknight.com (Michele Neylon - Blacknight) Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:49:12 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [AfrICANN-discuss] Diversity in ICANN (was Re: [members-discuss] Re: ICANN 2016 ...) In-Reply-To: <49200A39-8BDA-44CB-937B-6AF518A35749@gmail.com> References: <20160831014315.M39128@sdnp.org.mw> <941811040.2741941.1472648716989@mail.yahoo.com> <9CDC129D-7020-414D-B360-9FA492126B5C@gmail.com> <57C6EE57.12428.6047EF1@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> <49200A39-8BDA-44CB-937B-6AF518A35749@gmail.com> Message-ID: <022B3DBA-A44A-4221-BCE6-0CB18B74CE87@blacknight.com> Mike Some excellent points. How big a board would you need to have to be fully ?diverse?? I suspect that to make everyone happy (or equally miserable) it would have to be of an unwieldy size. But ICANN is meant to be bottom up, so the diversity (or any perceived lack of it) at the Board level shouldn?t be where people put their efforts anyway. If you want ICANN to be more diverse you need to focus on the bottom. How many people on this list are actively involved in policy development within ICANN? Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting, Colocation & Domains http://www.blacknight.host/ http://blacknight.blog/ http://www.blacknight.press - get our latest news & media coverage http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Social: http://mneylon.social Random Stuff: http://michele.irish ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland Company No.: 370845 From paulos at sdnp.org.mw Fri Sep 2 08:20:55 2016 From: paulos at sdnp.org.mw (Dr Paulos B Nyirenda) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 10:20:55 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] bad ICANN nomcom diversity - Re: ICANN 2016 Nominating Committee Announces Selections - unfortunate Africa distribution In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20160831205338.0b9091a8@resistor.net> References: <20160831014315.M39128@sdnp.org.mw>, <1631340155.2900810.1472660228734@mail.yahoo.com>, <6.2.5.6.2.20160831205338.0b9091a8@resistor.net> Message-ID: <57C93667.28858.EEDFEAA@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> I have been trying to work out and understand whether the ICANN NomCom could have done better than this in this selection and I find that there could be an inherent problem with diversity considerations within the ICANN NomCom They say that a picture says more than a thousand words, so, take a look at the 2016 ICANN NomCom and assess this ICANN asset for your serves: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/nomcom2016-members-1200x800-12nov15-e n.jpg . This is the group photo available at: https://www.icann.org/nomcom2016 Is it diverse enough ? It is then pertinet to ask if this kind of diversity in ICANN NomCom could have led to the unfortunate selection of Board members in the recent NomCom announcement. I tend to think so, question is, can they see beyond their noses ? My understanding is that for these things to get this bad at this level, something in the oversight function in ICANN is missing or has gone wrong and it should really not be happening in 2016 when we are all very conscious of the IANA Transition. So, studies like this one mentioned by SM are important and it would be good to see the results. Now, if there is any ICANN Board member listening to this, Mike included, please ask the Board to take or show a similar picture at the next ICANN Meeting with NomCom in front and ICANN Board at the back, then anyone can assess for themselves, especially on the case we are dealing with in this thread. Regards, Paulos ====================== Dr Paulos B Nyirenda NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD http://www.registrar.mw On 31 Aug 2016 at 21:49, SM wrote: > Hi Walu, Mike, Paulos, > At 09:17 31-08-2016, Walubengo J wrote: > >I know it is a touchy subject but fortunately or unfortunately I stand by it. > > A few months ago, the Association Fran?aise pour > le Nommage Internet en Coop?ration published a > report about ICANN diversity. According to the > report, "Africa, Latin America and Asia are > under-represented" as "ICANN community leaders". > > At 07:48 31-08-2016, Dr Paulos B Nyirenda wrote: > >is not the lever that I want to go down to in > >this case for ICANN Board Members, I am talking > >about regional diversity as defined in the ICANN > >system as well as in our own Africa Region Internet institutions > > > >I am not instigating for a quota other than what > >is already in the bylaws BUT I am asking for > >some reasonablenes in aclaimed ICANN diversity > >which I do not see in the current NomCom > >selection, that is the observation that I am making. > > I tried to find information about one of the > region's internet institution. Unfortunately, > the Africa Top Level Domain does not make its > constitution available on its website. The ICANN > bylaws has a "diversity calculation". The ALAC > Representative for the region is better qualified to explain how that works. > > Regards, > -sm > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4649/12916 - Release Date: 08/31/16 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From emailsignet at mailcan.com Fri Sep 2 08:53:12 2016 From: emailsignet at mailcan.com (waudo siganga) Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2016 11:53:12 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [AfrICANN-discuss] bad ICANN nomcom diversity - Re: ICANN 2016 Nominating Committee Announces Selections - unfortunate Africa distribution In-Reply-To: <57C93667.28858.EEDFEAA@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20160831205338.0b9091a8@resistor.net> <57C93667.28858.EEDFEAA@paulos.sdnp.org.mw> Message-ID: <1472806392.3514190.713619201.2C174603@webmail.messagingengine.com> Paulos - You are right the NomCom could do with reform. A couple of years ago as I mentioned earlier the board commissioned a working group that came out with a report and recommendations (https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bwg-nomcom-21aug14-en.pdf). I recall that time there was some opposition to the recommendations which included, inter alia, aligning the NomCom more to the So/AC structures. Africa was also to be guaranteed 3 seats. George Sardosky told me last week that the report is still on the table and will be considered soon; so you could have a look at it though public comments ended long ago. BTW the NomCom is only responsible for sitting 8 of the 16 voting directors. The rest are selected by SOs/ACs so that is another path for anyone interested in sitting on the board. W. On Fri, Sep 2, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Dr Paulos B Nyirenda wrote: > > I have been trying to work out and understand whether the ICANN NomCom > could have done better than this in this selection and I find that > there could be an inherent problem with diversity considerations > within the ICANN NomCom > > They say that a picture says more than a thousand words, so, take > a look at the 2016 ICANN NomCom and assess this ICANN asset for > your serves: > https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/nomcom2016-members-1200x800-12nov15-en.jpg > . > This is the group photo available at: https://www.icann.org/nomcom2016 > > Is it diverse enough ? > > It is then pertinet to ask if this kind of diversity in ICANN NomCom > could have led to the unfortunate selection of Board members in the > recent NomCom announcement. I tend to think so, question is, can they > see beyond their noses ? > > My understanding is that for these things to get this bad at this > level, something in the oversight function in ICANN is missing or has > gone wrong and it should really not be happening in 2016 when we are > all very conscious of the IANA Transition. > > So, studies like this one mentioned by SM are important and it would > be good to see the results. > > Now, if there is any ICANN Board member listening to this, Mike > included, please ask the Board to take or show a similar picture at > the next ICANN Meeting with NomCom in front and ICANN Board at the > back, then anyone can assess for themselves, especially on the case we > are dealing with in this thread. > > Regards, > > Paulos > ====================== > Dr Paulos B Nyirenda > NIC.MW & .mw ccTLD > http://www.registrar.mw > > > On 31 Aug 2016 at 21:49, SM wrote: > > > Hi Walu, Mike, Paulos, > > At 09:17 31-08-2016, Walubengo J wrote: > > >I know it is a touchy subject but fortunately or unfortunately I > > >stand by it. > > > > A few months ago, the Association Fran?aise pour > > le Nommage Internet en Coop?ration published a > > report about ICANN diversity. According to the > > report, "Africa, Latin America and Asia are > > under-represented" as "ICANN community leaders". > > > > At 07:48 31-08-2016, Dr Paulos B Nyirenda wrote: > > >is not the lever that I want to go down to in > > >this case for ICANN Board Members, I am talking > > >about regional diversity as defined in the ICANN > > >system as well as in our own Africa Region Internet institutions > > > > > >I am not instigating for a quota other than what > > >is already in the bylaws BUT I am asking for > > >some reasonablenes in aclaimed ICANN diversity > > >which I do not see in the current NomCom > > >selection, that is the observation that I am making. > > > > I tried to find information about one of the > > region's internet institution. Unfortunately, > > the Africa Top Level Domain does not make its > > constitution available on its website. The ICANN > > bylaws has a "diversity calculation". The ALAC > > Representative for the region is better qualified to explain how > > that works. > > > > Regards, > > -sm > > > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 2016.0.7752 / Virus Database: 4649/12916 - Release Date: > > 08/31/16 > > > > > _________________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/africann -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jnoulaye at yahoo.fr Tue Sep 6 08:06:54 2016 From: jnoulaye at yahoo.fr (jnoulaye at yahoo.fr) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 08:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Tr : [afnog] IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry updated In-Reply-To: <27A24700-82D8-466D-9F99-374DCDF58301@icann.org> References: <27A24700-82D8-466D-9F99-374DCDF58301@icann.org> Message-ID: <1704875169.289857.1473149214303@mail.yahoo.com> FYIRegards,Janvier Ngnoulaye ----- Mail transf?r? ----- De?: Selina Harrington ??: Selina Harrington Envoy? le : Jeudi 1 septembre 2016 23h21 Objet?: [afnog] IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry updated Hi, ICANN has updated the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry according to the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. The policy states that in each IPv4 allocation period, each RIR will receive a single IPv4 allocation unit from ICANN. An IPv4 allocation period is defined as a 6-month period following 1 March or 1 September in each year. The address space selection software can be downloaded from: https://github.com/icann/ The list of allocations can be found at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ Kind regards, Selina Harrington IANA Senior Specialist ICANN _______________________________________________ afnog mailing list https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2039 bytes Desc: not available URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Fri Sep 9 14:55:59 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:55:59 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi CEO, Where do we stand in building the consensus on the bylaws changes? Regards Arnaud Le 17 juin 2016 06:35, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > I have gone through the document but before I can add my comments, do we > know or have an overall process to follow for the bylaws changes? > > > > Basically, what is the overall process for the bylaws changes? > > We have not defined a timeline. Please comment as soon as you are ready > to comment. > > I hope that discussion will lead to rough consensus within the next one or > two months, and then bylaws can be drafted to implement the result. > Eventually, any bylaws changes will need to be approved by 75% majority at > a members meeting. Perhaps we?ll call a special meeting in November 2016 > for that purpose, and perhaps we?ll wait until May/June 2017. > > 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 Sat Sep 10 08:09:29 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:09:29 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 17 Jun 2016 09:36, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > We have not defined a timeline. Please comment as soon as you are ready to comment. > > I hope that discussion will lead to rough consensus within the next one or two months, and then bylaws can be drafted to implement the result. Eventually, any bylaws changes will need to be approved by 75% majority at a members meeting. Perhaps we?ll call a special meeting in November 2016 for that purpose, and perhaps we?ll wait until May/June 2017. > Hi Alan Where do we stand in building the consensus on the bylaws changes? > Alan Barrett > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Sat Sep 10 08:12:37 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:12:37 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 10 Sep 2016 11:09, "Noah" wrote: > > On 17 Jun 2016 09:36, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > > > We have not defined a timeline. Please comment as soon as you are ready to comment. > > > > I hope that discussion will lead to rough consensus within the next one or two months, and then bylaws can be drafted to implement the result. Eventually, any bylaws changes will need to be approved by 75% majority at a members meeting. Perhaps we?ll call a special meeting in November 2016 for that purpose, and perhaps we?ll wait until May/June 2017. > > > This has taken some time.... and am sure the community and membership has not had from you... > > > Alan Barrett > > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Sep 10 08:19:08 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:19:08 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> > On 9 Sep 2016, at 18:55, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Hi CEO, > > Where do we stand in building the consensus on the bylaws changes? The comments made on this list have been noted, and are being incorporated into bylaws changes drafted by the AFRINIC legal adviser. Alan Barrett From noah at neo.co.tz Sat Sep 10 08:25:51 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:25:51 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 10 Sep 2016 11:20, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > On 9 Sep 2016, at 18:55, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > > > Hi CEO, > > > > Where do we stand in building the consensus on the bylaws changes? > > The comments made on this list have been noted, and are being incorporated into bylaws changes drafted by the AFRINIC legal adviser. > Do we have any timelines? > Alan Barrett > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Sep 10 08:37:02 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 12:37:02 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> Message-ID: > On 10 Sep 2016, at 12:25, Noah wrote: > > > Where do we stand in building the consensus on the bylaws changes? > > > > The comments made on this list have been noted, and are being incorporated into bylaws changes drafted by the AFRINIC legal adviser. > > > > Do we have any timelines? I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. Alan Barrett From noah at neo.co.tz Sat Sep 10 08:50:39 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:50:39 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 10 Sep 2016 11:39, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > On 10 Sep 2016, at 12:25, Noah wrote: > > > > Where do we stand in building the consensus on the bylaws changes? > > > > > > The comments made on this list have been noted, and are being incorporated into bylaws changes drafted by the AFRINIC legal adviser. > > > > > > > Do we have any timelines? > > I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. > Thank you Alan, we look forward to your post. > 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 badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Sat Sep 10 14:09:30 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2016 14:09:30 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> , Message-ID: Hi Alan Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:37 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> >> Do we have any timelines? > > I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. > One is tempted to feel like these issues are given a lower priority among the scheme of things. But let me fight that temptation. Anyway I'm glad we will be getting something in the next few days. Problem is precedent means "few days" has very different meanings. Written with the best intention seeking a semblance of professionalism. > Alan Barrett > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From owen at delong.com Thu Sep 15 18:01:24 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:01:24 -0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> Badru, While?few days? may have very different meanings and is ambiguous, that?s not what Alan said. As you quoted below, Alan said ??post something next week?. To my knowledge, that?s a pretty unambiguous statement which means that we can expect him to post something somewhere between September 18 and September 24. It may be that he gets it out this week, instead, which would be even better, but worst case, he has constrained himself to no later than September 24 in an unambiguous way. The choice of ?few days? was entirely your choice of language which you then chose to criticize. I am very confused by this action. Owen > On Sep 10, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Hi Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:37 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >>> >>> Do we have any timelines? >> >> I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. >> > One is tempted to feel like these issues are given a lower priority among the scheme of things. But let me fight that temptation. > > Anyway I'm glad we will be getting something in the next few days. > > Problem is precedent means "few days" has very different meanings. > > Written with the best intention seeking a semblance of professionalism. > > >> 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 badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 16 04:15:52 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 04:15:52 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> , <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> Message-ID: <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> Owen Was not sure that our CEO had outsourced some of his responsibilities to you. However let me try and respond to your response. My statement was pointing to precedent. Which in my understanding refers to what has happened before. Allot of commitments do not seem to have any defined timelines which is reflected by the many emails from members referring to missed commitments. Unfortunately this constant attempt to shelter the CEO from very basic responsibilities by seeing statements like the one you refer to as unfair does not do him any favours. In all our jobs we make time bound commitments which we have to meet. Sorry but in a professional organisation "sometime next week" does not pass. But you are asking us to accept that ??. We need to separate the person from the role. Our CEO should be able to make time bound commitments and meet them. Let's put friendship aside. Regards. Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? ? Thomas A. Edison > On 15 Sep 2016, at 9:03 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: > > Badru, > > While?few days? may have very different meanings and is ambiguous, that?s not what Alan said. > > As you quoted below, Alan said ??post something next week?. To my knowledge, that?s a pretty > unambiguous statement which means that we can expect him to post something somewhere between > September 18 and September 24. It may be that he gets it out this week, instead, which would be > even better, but worst case, he has constrained himself to no later than September 24 in an unambiguous > way. > > The choice of ?few days? was entirely your choice of language which you then chose to criticize. > > I am very confused by this action. > > Owen > >> On Sep 10, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: >> >> Hi Alan >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:37 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Do we have any timelines? >>> >>> I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. >> One is tempted to feel like these issues are given a lower priority among the scheme of things. But let me fight that temptation. >> >> Anyway I'm glad we will be getting something in the next few days. >> >> Problem is precedent means "few days" has very different meanings. >> >> Written with the best intention seeking a semblance of professionalism. >> >> >>> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From owen at delong.com Fri Sep 16 04:29:51 2016 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:29:51 -0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> > On Sep 16, 2016, at 12:15 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Owen > > Was not sure that our CEO had outsourced some of his responsibilities to you. However let me try and respond to your response. Your sarcasm is as pointless as it is counterproductive, but this seems to be par for the course. > My statement was pointing to precedent. Which in my understanding refers to what has happened before. Allot of commitments do not seem to have any defined timelines which is reflected by the many emails from members referring to missed commitments. You quoted a particular message from Alan. That message contained a specific time commitment from the CEO which you paraphrased as ?few days?. You then went on to criticize the CEO based not on his words, but based on an ambiguity you introduced when you paraphrased his words. While there is precedent for your tendency to misquote people, I hardly think that is a particularly relevant matter. A commitment without a defined timeline is one thing. However, in this case, Alan provided a defined timeline which you chose to ignore in your message. Having ignored that, you went on to criticize the lack of a defined timeline which was an outright falsehood in this case. > Unfortunately this constant attempt to shelter the CEO from very basic responsibilities by seeing statements like the one you refer to as unfair does not do him any favours. In all our jobs we make time bound commitments which we have to meet. Sorry but in a professional organisation "sometime next week" does not pass. But you are asking us to accept that ??. I wasn?t sheltering the CEO from anything. I was outright criticizing a nonsensical statement made by you. Alan put a time constraint on his original statement. I even translated it into specific dates in case some linguistic challenge prevented you from understanding it this time. > We need to separate the person from the role. Our CEO should be able to make time bound commitments and meet them. Let's put friendship aside. Agreed. And in this case, he made a time bound commitment which is still in the future. As such, I?m not sure why you are insisting on criticizing him for not doing so. Owen > > Regards. > > > > Badru Ntege > CEO > NFT Consult Ltd > Www.Nftconsult.com > > ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? > ? Thomas A. Edison > > > > > > >> On 15 Sep 2016, at 9:03 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> Badru, >> >> While?few days? may have very different meanings and is ambiguous, that?s not what Alan said. >> >> As you quoted below, Alan said ??post something next week?. To my knowledge, that?s a pretty >> unambiguous statement which means that we can expect him to post something somewhere between >> September 18 and September 24. It may be that he gets it out this week, instead, which would be >> even better, but worst case, he has constrained himself to no later than September 24 in an unambiguous >> way. >> >> The choice of ?few days? was entirely your choice of language which you then chose to criticize. >> >> I am very confused by this action. >> >> Owen >> >>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alan >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:37 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do we have any timelines? >>>> >>>> I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. >>> One is tempted to feel like these issues are given a lower priority among the scheme of things. But let me fight that temptation. >>> >>> Anyway I'm glad we will be getting something in the next few days. >>> >>> Problem is precedent means "few days" has very different meanings. >>> >>> Written with the best intention seeking a semblance of professionalism. >>> >>> >>>> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 16 05:14:50 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 05:14:50 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com>, <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> Message-ID: <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> Owen I will not delve further into whatever seems to be rocking your boat. Whichever way you choose to extrapolate statements made by me the basic point from members is that. Many commitments made before are never met at the promised time. Now we might use words and a higher understanding of the English language to dress this up but a fixed date in time is what we need. Commitment was made on the 10th of September. Thus next week becomes 12th to 17th. I still have hope it will happen. Once again let's stop personalising issues. CEO is an employee of the organisation and that role comes with responsibilities. I was not trying to be sarcastic look back at all your recent emails. Especially to some members you are constantly trying to defend people who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They also have a choice to ignore an email which is also perfectly acceptable. So Alan's choice to ignore that statement in the email was perfectly acceptable but it is also hoped that the message had been received. I also hope you have got the message so we can stop this thread as I do not see how it positively contributes to our organisation. Let's agree to disagree Have a splendid Friday. Regards. Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? ? Thomas A. Edison > On 16 Sep 2016, at 7:31 am, Owen DeLong wrote: > > >> On Sep 16, 2016, at 12:15 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: >> >> Owen >> >> Was not sure that our CEO had outsourced some of his responsibilities to you. However let me try and respond to your response. > > Your sarcasm is as pointless as it is counterproductive, but this seems to be par for the course. > >> My statement was pointing to precedent. Which in my understanding refers to what has happened before. Allot of commitments do not seem to have any defined timelines which is reflected by the many emails from members referring to missed commitments. > > You quoted a particular message from Alan. That message contained a specific time commitment from the CEO which you paraphrased as ?few days?. You then went on to criticize the CEO based not on his words, but based on an ambiguity you introduced when you paraphrased his words. While there is precedent for your tendency to misquote people, I hardly think that is a particularly relevant matter. > > A commitment without a defined timeline is one thing. However, in this case, Alan provided a defined timeline which you chose to ignore in your message. Having ignored that, you went on to criticize the lack of a defined timeline which was an outright falsehood in this case. > >> Unfortunately this constant attempt to shelter the CEO from very basic responsibilities by seeing statements like the one you refer to as unfair does not do him any favours. In all our jobs we make time bound commitments which we have to meet. Sorry but in a professional organisation "sometime next week" does not pass. But you are asking us to accept that ??. > > I wasn?t sheltering the CEO from anything. I was outright criticizing a nonsensical statement made by you. > > Alan put a time constraint on his original statement. I even translated it into specific dates in case some linguistic challenge prevented you from understanding it this time. > >> We need to separate the person from the role. Our CEO should be able to make time bound commitments and meet them. Let's put friendship aside. > > Agreed. And in this case, he made a time bound commitment which is still in the future. As such, I?m not sure why you are insisting on criticizing him for not doing so. > > Owen > >> >> Regards. >> >> >> >> Badru Ntege >> CEO >> NFT Consult Ltd >> Www.Nftconsult.com >> >> ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? >> ? Thomas A. Edison >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 15 Sep 2016, at 9:03 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: >>> >>> Badru, >>> >>> While?few days? may have very different meanings and is ambiguous, that?s not what Alan said. >>> >>> As you quoted below, Alan said ??post something next week?. To my knowledge, that?s a pretty >>> unambiguous statement which means that we can expect him to post something somewhere between >>> September 18 and September 24. It may be that he gets it out this week, instead, which would be >>> even better, but worst case, he has constrained himself to no later than September 24 in an unambiguous >>> way. >>> >>> The choice of ?few days? was entirely your choice of language which you then chose to criticize. >>> >>> I am very confused by this action. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alan >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:37 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do we have any timelines? >>>>> >>>>> I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. >>>> One is tempted to feel like these issues are given a lower priority among the scheme of things. But let me fight that temptation. >>>> >>>> Anyway I'm glad we will be getting something in the next few days. >>>> >>>> Problem is precedent means "few days" has very different meanings. >>>> >>>> Written with the best intention seeking a semblance of professionalism. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 09:39:23 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:39:23 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: My few observations :- 1 Let us maintain objectivity in discussion and not attack persons 2 I feel too that Owen speaks too often for Alan. He is free to do so; Alan is free to not speak up as he wish. It is a free world. It does however raise eyebrows on intent of Owen with some people to paraphrase his action as shielding CEO. 3 Lets focus on future and remain optimistic and lets give a chance to people to deliver on their promises. If the man said next week give the man next week not few days. - On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: > Owen > > I will not delve further into whatever seems to be rocking your boat. > > Whichever way you choose to extrapolate statements made by me the basic point from members is that. Many commitments made before are never met at the promised time. > > Now we might use words and a higher understanding of the English language to dress this up but a fixed date in time is what we need. > > Commitment was made on the 10th of September. Thus next week becomes 12th to 17th. I still have hope it will happen. > > Once again let's stop personalising issues. CEO is an employee of the organisation and that role comes with responsibilities. > > I was not trying to be sarcastic look back at all your recent emails. Especially to some members you are constantly trying to defend people who are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They also have a choice to ignore an email which is also perfectly acceptable. > > So Alan's choice to ignore that statement in the email was perfectly acceptable but it is also hoped that the message had been received. > > I also hope you have got the message so we can stop this thread as I do not see how it positively contributes to our organisation. > > Let's agree to disagree > > Have a splendid Friday. > > Regards. > > Badru Ntege > CEO > NFT Consult Ltd > Www.Nftconsult.com > > ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? > ? Thomas A. Edison > > > > > > >> On 16 Sep 2016, at 7:31 am, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> >>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 12:15 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> Was not sure that our CEO had outsourced some of his responsibilities to you. However let me try and respond to your response. >> >> Your sarcasm is as pointless as it is counterproductive, but this seems to be par for the course. >> >>> My statement was pointing to precedent. Which in my understanding refers to what has happened before. Allot of commitments do not seem to have any defined timelines which is reflected by the many emails from members referring to missed commitments. >> >> You quoted a particular message from Alan. That message contained a specific time commitment from the CEO which you paraphrased as ?few days?. You then went on to criticize the CEO based not on his words, but based on an ambiguity you introduced when you paraphrased his words. While there is precedent for your tendency to misquote people, I hardly think that is a particularly relevant matter. >> >> A commitment without a defined timeline is one thing. However, in this case, Alan provided a defined timeline which you chose to ignore in your message. Having ignored that, you went on to criticize the lack of a defined timeline which was an outright falsehood in this case. >> >>> Unfortunately this constant attempt to shelter the CEO from very basic responsibilities by seeing statements like the one you refer to as unfair does not do him any favours. In all our jobs we make time bound commitments which we have to meet. Sorry but in a professional organisation "sometime next week" does not pass. But you are asking us to accept that ??. >> >> I wasn?t sheltering the CEO from anything. I was outright criticizing a nonsensical statement made by you. >> >> Alan put a time constraint on his original statement. I even translated it into specific dates in case some linguistic challenge prevented you from understanding it this time. >> >>> We need to separate the person from the role. Our CEO should be able to make time bound commitments and meet them. Let's put friendship aside. >> >> Agreed. And in this case, he made a time bound commitment which is still in the future. As such, I?m not sure why you are insisting on criticizing him for not doing so. >> >> Owen >> >>> >>> Regards. >>> >>> >>> >>> Badru Ntege >>> CEO >>> NFT Consult Ltd >>> Www.Nftconsult.com >>> >>> ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? >>> ? Thomas A. Edison >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 15 Sep 2016, at 9:03 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: >>>> >>>> Badru, >>>> >>>> While?few days? may have very different meanings and is ambiguous, that?s not what Alan said. >>>> >>>> As you quoted below, Alan said ??post something next week?. To my knowledge, that?s a pretty >>>> unambiguous statement which means that we can expect him to post something somewhere between >>>> September 18 and September 24. It may be that he gets it out this week, instead, which would be >>>> even better, but worst case, he has constrained himself to no later than September 24 in an unambiguous >>>> way. >>>> >>>> The choice of ?few days? was entirely your choice of language which you then chose to criticize. >>>> >>>> I am very confused by this action. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alan >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:37 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do we have any timelines? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. >>>>> One is tempted to feel like these issues are given a lower priority among the scheme of things. But let me fight that temptation. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway I'm glad we will be getting something in the next few days. >>>>> >>>>> Problem is precedent means "few days" has very different meanings. >>>>> >>>>> Written with the best intention seeking a semblance of professionalism. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Sep 16 09:48:16 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:48:16 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> > On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:39, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > 2 I feel too that Owen speaks too often for Alan. He is free to do so; > Alan is free to not speak up as he wish. It is a free world. +1 > It does > however raise eyebrows on intent of Owen with some people to > paraphrase his action as shielding CEO. ++1 ?and others wonder why Owen repeatedly sees the need to when it is unsolicited or even unnecessary most times. Omo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 16 09:51:20 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 09:51:20 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free to do so as anyone here is free to say anything. Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t like what they say ? feel free to ignore it. It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY SHOULD BE SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS NOT SUPPORTED? Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are supposed to go. Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, whining about things because you don?t like what someone says without adding anything constructive to the debate just indicates a level of insecurity and is pretty boring. And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t what I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not like it makes a difference to me. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net] Sent: 16 September 2016 12:48 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:39, Jackson Muthili > wrote: 2 I feel too that Owen speaks too often for Alan. He is free to do so; Alan is free to not speak up as he wish. It is a free world. +1 It does however raise eyebrows on intent of Owen with some people to paraphrase his action as shielding CEO. ++1 ?and others wonder why Owen repeatedly sees the need to when it is unsolicited or even unnecessary most times. Omo. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 10:21:01 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:21:01 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. > > If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free to do > so as anyone here is free to say anything. Has anyone restricted or stopped another from expressing themselves? > Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t like > what they say ? feel free to ignore it. I agree. Just as Alan has chosen to ignore Badrus emails. > It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP > meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY SHOULD BE > SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? > > And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS NOT > SUPPORTED? There you go. It annoys you. And that's why others have always let you stand in the meeting and belittle and disparage others you dont like or agree with. its a free world after all. > Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are supposed to > go. > > Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, or, in > this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, whining about > things because you don?t like what someone says without adding anything > constructive to the debate just indicates a level of insecurity and is > pretty boring. > > And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t what > I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not like it > makes a difference to me. Exactly my point. Speak up freely. You are even free to abuse the docility of a community and belittle them as you wish. After all, you are exercising your freedom of speech. From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 16 10:39:50 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:39:50 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: Thanks Jackson for your permission for me to speak, its hugely appreciated. Anyway, I'm off to have a nice drink and worry about things that actually matter :) Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] Sent: 16 September 2016 13:21 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. > > If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free > to do so as anyone here is free to say anything. Has anyone restricted or stopped another from expressing themselves? > Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t > like what they say ? feel free to ignore it. I agree. Just as Alan has chosen to ignore Badrus emails. > It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP > meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY > SHOULD BE SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? > > And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS > NOT SUPPORTED? There you go. It annoys you. And that's why others have always let you stand in the meeting and belittle and disparage others you dont like or agree with. its a free world after all. > Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are > supposed to go. > > Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, > or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, > whining about things because you don?t like what someone says without > adding anything constructive to the debate just indicates a level of > insecurity and is pretty boring. > > And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t > what I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not > like it makes a difference to me. Exactly my point. Speak up freely. You are even free to abuse the docility of a community and belittle them as you wish. After all, you are exercising your freedom of speech. _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 16 10:47:34 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:47:34 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> , Message-ID: Members We need to put certain things in perspective As members we share views openly and are free to comment or not to comment. Even free speech has its guidelines thus the code of conduct. The origins of my comment which seems to have sparked defensive comments from third parties was based on past experience where official commitments have been made and not met. Please remember CEO is not like any member on this list. The community or some might say members through the board have entrusted the stewardship of our organisation to him by contract. Thus certain expectations. Making and keeping commitments to me are the simplest. And my comment once again was based on past experience not future. I read some frustrations from members about meeting behavior which is guided under the code of conduct and usually session chairs. I fail to see the connection. Let's focus on timely deliverables Regards. Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Sep 2016, at 12:21 PM, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: >> It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. >> >> If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free to do >> so as anyone here is free to say anything. > > Has anyone restricted or stopped another from expressing themselves? > >> Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t like >> what they say ? feel free to ignore it. > > I agree. Just as Alan has chosen to ignore Badrus emails. > >> It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP >> meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY SHOULD BE >> SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? >> >> And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS NOT >> SUPPORTED? > > There you go. It annoys you. And that's why others have always let you > stand in the meeting and belittle and disparage others you dont like > or agree with. its a free world after all. > >> Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are supposed to >> go. >> >> Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, or, in >> this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, whining about >> things because you don?t like what someone says without adding anything >> constructive to the debate just indicates a level of insecurity and is >> pretty boring. >> >> And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t what >> I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not like it >> makes a difference to me. > > Exactly my point. Speak up freely. You are even free to abuse the > docility of a community and belittle them as you wish. After all, you > are exercising your freedom of speech. > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Sep 16 10:51:14 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:51:14 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: Well CEO promised to get back within a week if i read him well... Badru was for specifics in terms of timelines... I dont know what Owen was talking about or trying to say... Jackson said we remain objective at the of the day But at the end, I will wait for the CEO's promise of within a week... Nice weekend... On 16 Sep 2016 13:42, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > Thanks Jackson for your permission for me to speak, its hugely appreciated. > > Anyway, I'm off to have a nice drink and worry about things that actually > matter :) > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] > Sent: 16 September 2016 13:21 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: > > It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. > > > > If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free > > to do so as anyone here is free to say anything. > > Has anyone restricted or stopped another from expressing themselves? > > > Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t > > like what they say ? feel free to ignore it. > > I agree. Just as Alan has chosen to ignore Badrus emails. > > > It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP > > meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY > > SHOULD BE SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? > > > > And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS > > NOT SUPPORTED? > > There you go. It annoys you. And that's why others have always let you > stand in the meeting and belittle and disparage others you dont like or > agree with. its a free world after all. > > > Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are > > supposed to go. > > > > Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, > > or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, > > whining about things because you don?t like what someone says without > > adding anything constructive to the debate just indicates a level of > > insecurity and is pretty boring. > > > > And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t > > what I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not > > like it makes a difference to me. > > Exactly my point. Speak up freely. You are even free to abuse the docility > of a community and belittle them as you wish. After all, you are exercising > your freedom of speech. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd Fri Sep 16 10:52:58 2016 From: christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd (Christian Bope) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:52:58 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you Jackson for your observations which make more sense to me as a members of the community. We should all focus our energy and strength in the building up of the community and the future. Remain optimistic and maintain some decorum and respect in the way we communicate. "Our diversity is our strength". Speaking as a member of the community. 2016-09-16 17:39 GMT+08:00 Jackson Muthili : > My few observations :- > > 1 Let us maintain objectivity in discussion and not attack persons > 2 I feel too that Owen speaks too often for Alan. He is free to do so; > Alan is free to not speak up as he wish. It is a free world. It does > however raise eyebrows on intent of Owen with some people to > paraphrase his action as shielding CEO. > 3 Lets focus on future and remain optimistic and lets give a chance to > people to deliver on their promises. If the man said next week give > the man next week not few days. > > - > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Badru Ntege > wrote: > > Owen > > > > I will not delve further into whatever seems to be rocking your boat. > > > > Whichever way you choose to extrapolate statements made by me the basic > point from members is that. Many commitments made before are never met at > the promised time. > > > > Now we might use words and a higher understanding of the English > language to dress this up but a fixed date in time is what we need. > > > > Commitment was made on the 10th of September. Thus next week becomes > 12th to 17th. I still have hope it will happen. > > > > Once again let's stop personalising issues. CEO is an employee of the > organisation and that role comes with responsibilities. > > > > I was not trying to be sarcastic look back at all your recent emails. > Especially to some members you are constantly trying to defend people who > are perfectly capable of defending themselves. They also have a choice to > ignore an email which is also perfectly acceptable. > > > > So Alan's choice to ignore that statement in the email was perfectly > acceptable but it is also hoped that the message had been received. > > > > I also hope you have got the message so we can stop this thread as I do > not see how it positively contributes to our organisation. > > > > Let's agree to disagree > > > > Have a splendid Friday. > > > > Regards. > > > > Badru Ntege > > CEO > > NFT Consult Ltd > > Www.Nftconsult.com > > > > ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? > > ? Thomas A. Edison > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> On 16 Sep 2016, at 7:31 am, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 12:15 AM, Badru Ntege > wrote: > >>> > >>> Owen > >>> > >>> Was not sure that our CEO had outsourced some of his responsibilities > to you. However let me try and respond to your response. > >> > >> Your sarcasm is as pointless as it is counterproductive, but this seems > to be par for the course. > >> > >>> My statement was pointing to precedent. Which in my understanding > refers to what has happened before. Allot of commitments do not seem to > have any defined timelines which is reflected by the many emails from > members referring to missed commitments. > >> > >> You quoted a particular message from Alan. That message contained a > specific time commitment from the CEO which you paraphrased as ?few days?. > You then went on to criticize the CEO based not on his words, but based on > an ambiguity you introduced when you paraphrased his words. While there is > precedent for your tendency to misquote people, I hardly think that is a > particularly relevant matter. > >> > >> A commitment without a defined timeline is one thing. However, in this > case, Alan provided a defined timeline which you chose to ignore in your > message. Having ignored that, you went on to criticize the lack of a > defined timeline which was an outright falsehood in this case. > >> > >>> Unfortunately this constant attempt to shelter the CEO from very basic > responsibilities by seeing statements like the one you refer to as unfair > does not do him any favours. In all our jobs we make time bound commitments > which we have to meet. Sorry but in a professional organisation "sometime > next week" does not pass. But you are asking us to accept that ??. > >> > >> I wasn?t sheltering the CEO from anything. I was outright criticizing a > nonsensical statement made by you. > >> > >> Alan put a time constraint on his original statement. I even translated > it into specific dates in case some linguistic challenge prevented you from > understanding it this time. > >> > >>> We need to separate the person from the role. Our CEO should be able > to make time bound commitments and meet them. Let's put friendship aside. > >> > >> Agreed. And in this case, he made a time bound commitment which is > still in the future. As such, I?m not sure why you are insisting on > criticizing him for not doing so. > >> > >> Owen > >> > >>> > >>> Regards. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Badru Ntege > >>> CEO > >>> NFT Consult Ltd > >>> Www.Nftconsult.com > >>> > >>> ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? > >>> ? Thomas A. Edison > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 15 Sep 2016, at 9:03 pm, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Badru, > >>>> > >>>> While?few days? may have very different meanings and is ambiguous, > that?s not what Alan said. > >>>> > >>>> As you quoted below, Alan said ??post something next week?. To my > knowledge, that?s a pretty > >>>> unambiguous statement which means that we can expect him to post > something somewhere between > >>>> September 18 and September 24. It may be that he gets it out this > week, instead, which would be > >>>> even better, but worst case, he has constrained himself to no later > than September 24 in an unambiguous > >>>> way. > >>>> > >>>> The choice of ?few days? was entirely your choice of language which > you then chose to criticize. > >>>> > >>>> I am very confused by this action. > >>>> > >>>> Owen > >>>> > >>>>> On Sep 10, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Badru Ntege < > badru.ntege at nftconsult.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Alan > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>>>> On 10 Sep 2016, at 11:37 AM, Alan Barrett < > alan.barrett at afrinic.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Do we have any timelines? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have already received a draft, but I have not yet reviewed it. I > hope to complete my own review and then be able to post something next week. > >>>>> One is tempted to feel like these issues are given a lower priority > among the scheme of things. But let me fight that temptation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyway I'm glad we will be getting something in the next few days. > >>>>> > >>>>> Problem is precedent means "few days" has very different meanings. > >>>>> > >>>>> Written with the best intention seeking a semblance of > professionalism. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Community-Discuss mailing list > >>>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Community-Discuss mailing list > >>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community-Discuss mailing list > >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Sep 16 10:56:03 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 13:56:03 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Thanks Jackson for your permission for me to speak, its hugely appreciated. :-) > Anyway, I'm off to have a nice drink and worry about things that actually matter :) On a more serious note :- yes theres freedom of speech and expression. Let this not be freedom of abuse and mocking others. Let us exercise good judgement and not underestimate power of words. Words can incite immense hatred, violence, or utter and extreme peace and harmony. Dont ridicule with anger just because someone disagrees with you ideologically on an issue. Dont raise your voice and gesture with anger and disgust over a trivial matter that can be solved with simple, respectful and harmonious dialogue. However much smarter you think you are than the individual(s) you are dialoguing with. You see when you mock, insult and belittle someone under the guise of freedom of expression, that person and all of his/her friends colleagues and sympathizers might behave the same towards you. And yours likewise. And the community will NEVER converge on issues of mutual benefit. Enjoy your weekend and take it easy on that nice drink ;-) > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] > Sent: 16 September 2016 13:21 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: >> It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. >> >> If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free >> to do so as anyone here is free to say anything. > > Has anyone restricted or stopped another from expressing themselves? > >> Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t >> like what they say ? feel free to ignore it. > > I agree. Just as Alan has chosen to ignore Badrus emails. > >> It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP >> meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY >> SHOULD BE SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? >> >> And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS >> NOT SUPPORTED? > > There you go. It annoys you. And that's why others have always let you stand in the meeting and belittle and disparage others you dont like or agree with. its a free world after all. > >> Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are >> supposed to go. >> >> Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, >> or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, >> whining about things because you don?t like what someone says without >> adding anything constructive to the debate just indicates a level of >> insecurity and is pretty boring. >> >> And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t >> what I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not >> like it makes a difference to me. > > Exactly my point. Speak up freely. You are even free to abuse the docility of a community and belittle them as you wish. After all, you are exercising your freedom of speech. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 noah at neo.co.tz Fri Sep 16 11:03:00 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:03:00 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: On 16 Sep 2016 13:03, "Andrew Alston" wrote: > > Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it. > Mmmmmmmmmmm I dont support this, we ought to remain objective imho... Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 16 11:17:36 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 11:17:36 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: <728A4B10-3BB2-41C0-867C-708EF4964BD8@liquidtelecom.com> Jackson, Maybe it?s time for me to be bluntly honest and open. Because yes, my sarcasm is not becoming, but I am beyond frustrated and tired of what I see on this list. It is hypocrisy in the extreme to read from certain individuals whining about other people not meeting deadlines considering their past track records. It is up to individuals to figure out if they figure into this category or not. It is hypocrisy in the extreme from people to sit on this list and cry about process and adherence to it when I see constant violations of it from the floor by the same people, who have never bothered to read the processes that govern the various forums they participate in. It is hypocrisy in the extreme that people talk about accountability and about governance without bothering to understand the actual processes and governance that already exists. If people wish to talk about accountability and governance and timing ? a.) look at your own track records b.) start behaving within the bounds of defined process c.) stop crying about what others say and actually say things that are productive and contribute d.) contribute something to the organization rather than believing that your only contribution is to attack those that are contributing their time and effort to this organization. If this email doesn?t apply to you ? so be it, please ignore it, if however you feel it does, that is your choice to make and you can take it to heart or fight it. I?m kinda beyond caring at the pettiness I see on here ? and while I am sleep deprived, at least if I continue to read the same boring attacks on those who are attempting to do things they will sooner or later put me to sleep Written in my personal capacity Andrew On 16/09/2016, 1:56 PM, "Jackson Muthili" wrote: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Thanks Jackson for your permission for me to speak, its hugely appreciated. :-) > Anyway, I'm off to have a nice drink and worry about things that actually matter :) On a more serious note :- yes theres freedom of speech and expression. Let this not be freedom of abuse and mocking others. Let us exercise good judgement and not underestimate power of words. Words can incite immense hatred, violence, or utter and extreme peace and harmony. Dont ridicule with anger just because someone disagrees with you ideologically on an issue. Dont raise your voice and gesture with anger and disgust over a trivial matter that can be solved with simple, respectful and harmonious dialogue. However much smarter you think you are than the individual(s) you are dialoguing with. You see when you mock, insult and belittle someone under the guise of freedom of expression, that person and all of his/her friends colleagues and sympathizers might behave the same towards you. And yours likewise. And the community will NEVER converge on issues of mutual benefit. Enjoy your weekend and take it easy on that nice drink ;-) > > Andrew > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] > Sent: 16 September 2016 13:21 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: >> It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. >> >> If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free >> to do so as anyone here is free to say anything. > > Has anyone restricted or stopped another from expressing themselves? > >> Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t >> like what they say ? feel free to ignore it. > > I agree. Just as Alan has chosen to ignore Badrus emails. > >> It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP >> meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY >> SHOULD BE SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? >> >> And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS >> NOT SUPPORTED? > > There you go. It annoys you. And that's why others have always let you stand in the meeting and belittle and disparage others you dont like or agree with. its a free world after all. > >> Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are >> supposed to go. >> >> Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, >> or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, >> whining about things because you don?t like what someone says without >> adding anything constructive to the debate just indicates a level of >> insecurity and is pretty boring. >> >> And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t >> what I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not >> like it makes a difference to me. > > Exactly my point. Speak up freely. You are even free to abuse the docility of a community and belittle them as you wish. After all, you are exercising your freedom of speech. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 From ali at hussein.me.ke Fri Sep 16 11:50:26 2016 From: ali at hussein.me.ke (Ali Hussein) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 14:50:26 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: <6F29D249-3BFB-40B3-B3A6-AA5D2DF851E2@hussein.me.ke> All I actually find some discussions here pretty demeaning and disheartening. Doesn't this list have some basic guidelines regarding decorum and rules of engagement? Otherwise we will end up losing focus on why this discussion forum was started in the first place - which I'm presuming is to enhance the Afrinic Community at large and Afrinic as a corporate in particular. 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 16 Sep 2016, at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. > > If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free to do so as anyone here is free to say anything. > > Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t like what they say ? feel free to ignore it. > > It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY SHOULD BE SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? > > And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS NOT SUPPORTED? > > Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are supposed to go. > > Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, whining about things because you don?t like what someone says without adding anything constructive to the debate just indicates a level of insecurity and is pretty boring. > > And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t what I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not like it makes a difference to me. > > Andrew > > > From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net] > Sent: 16 September 2016 12:48 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment > > > On 16 Sep 2016, at 10:39, Jackson Muthili wrote: > > 2 I feel too that Owen speaks too often for Alan. He is free to do so; > Alan is free to not speak up as he wish. It is a free world. > > > +1 > > > It does > however raise eyebrows on intent of Owen with some people to > paraphrase his action as shielding CEO. > > ++1 ?and others wonder why Owen repeatedly sees the need to when it is unsolicited or even unnecessary most times. > > 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 alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Sep 16 14:17:13 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 18:17:13 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AFRINICRIRAccountability-SuggestedImprovements-20160916.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47627 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Sep 16 14:53:08 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:53:08 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification In-Reply-To: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> References: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Sunday Folayan wrote: > > > 4. Membership of CoE > The Bylaws section 16 gives the Board the power to consider former > Chairpersons of AFRINIC for appointment to the Council of Elders. The Board > has not formally discussed appointing the former Chairman in question to > the CoE, but we will add a discussion of this issue to the agenda of the > next Board meeting. > > Hi Sunday, I am not sure if you received my previous email but I will ask again, do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i believe has happened in the recent past.? Thanks and Regards? > > Sunday Folayan Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Fri Sep 16 15:54:15 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:54:15 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <036a0bd1-a03d-1ebc-5fa7-42515834fe4b@posix.co.za> I've taken a look at the suggested outcome (The proposed amendments) and generally I believe the suggested amendments to be very acceptable. Thank you for taking the time and doing this Alan. My only disappointment is the outcome regarding the non-voting status of Associate Members, whom I strongly feel should be allowed to vote (in a similar manner as resource members) from their first anniversary onwards. On 16/09/2016 16:42, Alan Barrett wrote: > FYI. Please discuss these proposed bylaws changes in the > community-discuss list. > > Voting on Bylaws is restricted to members, but I would like > discussion to be open to non-members. > > Alan Barrett > > >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Alan Barrett Subject: >> [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes >> Date: 16 September 2016 at 18:17:13 +0400 To: General Discussions >> of AFRINIC Reply-To: General >> Discussions of AFRINIC >> >> 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 -- 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: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From christianbope at gmail.com Fri Sep 16 16:38:10 2016 From: christianbope at gmail.com (Bope Domilongo Christian) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 00:38:10 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: Dear CEO, Thank you for sharing the Bylaws change working document with the community. After reading the document, I have two quick question before going to the substance of the changes. 1. How the decisions was made for the ?No consensus? / ?no objections?? 2. I remember that during the discussions, other propositions of amendment were made in addition to the points in your discussion document. Have these points been considered ? Speaking on my own capacity. Regards On 16 Sep 2016 11:24 p.m., "Badru Ntege" wrote: > Thanks Alan > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 16 Sep 2016, at 5:47 PM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > > > > FYI. Please discuss these proposed bylaws changes in the > community-discuss list. > > > > Voting on Bylaws is restricted to members, but I would like discussion > to be open to non-members. > > > > Alan Barrett > > > > > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >> From: Alan Barrett > >> Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes > >> Date: 16 September 2016 at 18:17:13 +0400 > >> To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > >> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > >> > >> 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Members-Discuss mailing list > > Members-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Sep 16 16:57:08 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2016 19:57:08 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > Dear CEO, > > Thank you for sharing the Bylaws change working document with the > community. > > After reading the document, I have two quick question before going to the > substance of the changes. > 1. How the decisions was made for the ?No consensus? / ?no objections?? > > 2. I remember that during the discussions, other propositions of amendment > were made in addition to the points in your discussion document. Have these > points been considered ? In the spirit of collaboration and moving forward, can you highlight those propositions that were discussed and have been omitted? That way your input will actually be constructive. From christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd Fri Sep 16 17:16:21 2016 From: christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd (Christian Bope) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 01:16:21 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: On 17 Sep 2016 12:58 a.m., "Jackson Muthili" wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian > wrote: > > Dear CEO, > > > > Thank you for sharing the Bylaws change working document with the > > community. > > > > After reading the document, I have two quick question before going to the > > substance of the changes. > > 1. How the decisions was made for the ?No consensus? / ?no objections?? > > > > 2. I remember that during the discussions, other propositions of amendment > > were made in addition to the points in your discussion document. Have these > > points been considered ? > > In the spirit of collaboration and moving forward, can you highlight > those propositions that were discussed and have been omitted? That way > your input will actually be constructive I would love to do that. Unfortunately I was not consolidated the comment. Or the easiest way maybe if it is possible the CEO can share as well the consolidated document which include all the comment. The time consuming approach is for me going to the mailing archive that will take time. Regards, Bope > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 17 03:54:40 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:54:40 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: [posting only to community-discuss. Please do not cross-post] > On 16 Sep 2016, at 20:38, Bope Domilongo Christian wrote: > After reading the document, I have two quick question before going to the substance of the changes. > 1. How the decisions was made for the ?No consensus? / ?no objections?? I read and listened to discussions, both on and off the mailing lists. If you think I misunderstood the discussion, or missed something, then please point it out. > 2. I remember that during the discussions, other propositions of amendment were made in addition to the points in your discussion document. Have these points been considered ? Please list those items. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Sep 17 03:56:09 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:56:09 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: On 16 Sep 2016, at 21:16, Christian Bope wrote: > Or the easiest way maybe if it is possible the CEO can share as well the consolidated document which include all the comment. > > The time consuming approach is for me going to the mailing archive that will take time. I don?t know of any consolidated document which includes all the comments. Comments were made in various mailing lists, as well as off-list. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Sep 17 04:07:37 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:07:37 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <036a0bd1-a03d-1ebc-5fa7-42515834fe4b@posix.co.za> References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <036a0bd1-a03d-1ebc-5fa7-42515834fe4b@posix.co.za> Message-ID: <141C796E-B80D-4328-AC34-402913CED49F@afrinic.net> > On 16 Sep 2016, at 19:54, Mark Elkins wrote: > > I've taken a look at the suggested outcome (The proposed amendments) and > generally I believe the suggested amendments to be very > acceptable. Thank you for taking the time and doing this Alan. > > My only disappointment is the outcome regarding the non-voting status of > Associate Members, whom I strongly feel should be allowed to vote (in a > similar manner as resource members) from their first anniversary onwards. Yes, some people do want Associate Members to be allowed to vote, possibly after a time delay. However, my sense of the overall discussion is that most people think that (a) Associate members should not vote, and (b) the Bylaws already say that they cannot vote, elthough the wording may be confusing. In this round, I want to propose changes that both improve AFRINIC?s accountability, and have a high probablility of passing the 75% majority vote, so I am proposing to clarify the wording around what most people already think is the case that Associate Members cannot vote. Alan Barrett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd Sat Sep 17 06:06:04 2016 From: christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd (Christian Bope) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 14:06:04 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: Dear Alan, Thank you for your response on my second question, I check my archive and revert back to you those items. What about my first question on How the decisions was made for the ?No consensus? / ?no objections? Have a nice weekend. Speaking on my own capacity. Regards, On 17 Sep 2016 12:01 p.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: > [posting only to community-discuss. Please do not cross-post] > > > On 16 Sep 2016, at 20:38, Bope Domilongo Christian < > christianbope at gmail.com> wrote: > > After reading the document, I have two quick question before going to > the substance of the changes. > > 1. How the decisions was made for the ?No consensus? / ?no > objections?? > > I read and listened to discussions, both on and off the mailing lists. If > you think I misunderstood the discussion, or missed something, then please > point it out. > > > 2. I remember that during the discussions, other propositions of > amendment were made in addition to the points in your discussion document. > Have these points been considered ? > > Please list those items. > > 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 Sep 17 06:14:22 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2016 10:14:22 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <12DB7332-35F3-4539-961C-5A3E4B40D093@afrinic.net> > On 17 Sep 2016, at 10:06, Christian Bope wrote: > What about my first question on > How the decisions was made for the ?No consensus? / ?no objections? I answered that already. I assessed the opinion of the community by reading or listening to discussion on and off mailing lists. It?s quite possible that I made mistakes. Pointing out the mistakes will be much more useful than asking questions about what happens in my mind while I am attempting to assess the opinion of the community. Alan Barrett From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Sep 18 06:27:15 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:27:15 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Alan, No objection to any of these - however, Item 11 as regards the modification to the bylaws or constitution - when that wording does arrive, needs to specific special resolution of Registered and Resource members, *NOT* All members (which would include associate members, who, according to article 1 of the document will have no vote) Thanks Andrew -----Original Message----- From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net] Sent: 16 September 2016 17:17 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes 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 From ondouglas at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 09:40:17 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 12:40:17 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: 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. Regards, On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett 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 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 15:32:28 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 16:32:28 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hello, At the moment we have three main categories with their purposes; 1. We have the entire community, which includes everyone participating within AFRINIC one way or the other. 2. We have those who are customers of AFRINIC (referred to as resource members) 3. We have those who are "literally" shareholders of AFRINIC (called registered members). Perhaps we then need to identify other purposes that has not been captured in the three categories stated above in other to draw a purpose for the associate membership which seem to be an orphan at the moment. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 18 Sep 2016 10:41 a.m., "Douglas Onyango" 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. > > > Regards, > > On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett > 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 >> 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 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Sun Sep 18 21:05:54 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 00:05:54 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango 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. > > > Regards, > > On 16 September 2016 at 17:17, Alan Barrett > 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 >> 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 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net Sun Sep 18 21:44:33 2016 From: Boubakar.Barry at wacren.net (Boubakar Barry) Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 21:44:33 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili wrote: > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango > 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 > > 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 > >> 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 > > 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 geier at geier.ne.tz Mon Sep 19 03:49:27 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 06:49:27 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <389b4cba-7ce9-0dac-aab7-246abc1bd815@geier.ne.tz> Hi, On 9/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boubakar Barry wrote: > 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. I agree, with all of the above. Well said. Considering that someone could control many legal entities, and these could all become associate members, that could change voting outcomes very much into that someone's favour. Frank Habicht From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 08:05:30 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:05:30 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <389b4cba-7ce9-0dac-aab7-246abc1bd815@geier.ne.tz> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <389b4cba-7ce9-0dac-aab7-246abc1bd815@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: Hi Frank, et al, On 19 September 2016 at 06:49, Frank Habicht wrote: > I agree, with all of the above. Well said. > Considering that someone could control many legal entities, and these > could all become associate members, that could change voting outcomes > very much into that someone's favour. My original intent, which I thought I had expressed clearly in previous discussions, is a more fundamental issue with the Associate Membership category: lack of value addition. This issue is a parent issue to the proposed clarifying text. It must be addressed first to pave way for, and inform any clarifying text on Associate Membership in the bylaws. Now just to be clear, I am not advocating for voting rights per se. What I am advocating for is value addition for every membership category. The idea of a membership category that collects fees but offers no value in return just doesn't sit well with me. My proposal is that we find substantial value for this category. If we can't, I believe the membership category makes no sense and should effectively be dropped all together. I hope this provides more clarity on my views. Regards, From silber.mike at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 08:39:30 2016 From: silber.mike at gmail.com (Mike Silber) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:39:30 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> > On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Sep 19 09:03:21 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:03:21 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. Thanks Andrew From: Mike Silber Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 09:08:00 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:08:00 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: 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. Regards On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Alan Barrett 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 > 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 mje at posix.co.za Mon Sep 19 09:38:33 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:38:33 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <3FC5B314-99BD-4476-A97A-070235F1C083@posix.co.za> How could it ever be four? Or are you counting the region that the CEO comes from? . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - (South) Africa. /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496 > On 19 Sep 2016, at 11:08, Seun Ojedeji 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. > > Regards > >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Alan Barrett 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 >> 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! > > _______________________________________________ > 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 seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 09:44:20 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:44:20 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <3FC5B314-99BD-4476-A97A-070235F1C083@posix.co.za> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <3FC5B314-99BD-4476-A97A-070235F1C083@posix.co.za> Message-ID: Yes indeed and that would be in extreme situation. The more probable scenarios is when we have 3. Cheers! On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Mark Elkins wrote: > How could it ever be four? Or are you counting the region that the CEO > comes from? > > . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - (South) Africa. > /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco > CCIE > / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 <+27%2012%20807%200590> > Cell: +27 82 601 0496 <+27%2082%20601%200496> > > On 19 Sep 2016, at 11:08, Seun Ojedeji 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. > > Regards > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Alan Barrett > 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 >> 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! > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 geier at geier.ne.tz Mon Sep 19 09:49:19 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:49:19 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <389b4cba-7ce9-0dac-aab7-246abc1bd815@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <4af4886c-c23f-d874-5ec9-998248e21dc3@geier.ne.tz> Hi Douglas, valid points. One small "value addition" is of course the "priceless" association with AfriNIC. I trust that for "some, but only a few" entities this could be enough value. But beyond that I think the question is: "how much more value does AfriNIC want to give and how many more associate members do we wish to get?" We probably have diverse answers to this. I personally prefer if we can find enough seats at the members' meeting ;-) About dropping the category altogether: I don't object. But maybe there are a number of entities that would want to become associate members, just because they like that, and without voting rights...??? (I don't know) Regards, Frank On 9/19/2016 11:05 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Frank, et al, > On 19 September 2016 at 06:49, Frank Habicht wrote: >> I agree, with all of the above. Well said. >> Considering that someone could control many legal entities, and these >> could all become associate members, that could change voting outcomes >> very much into that someone's favour. > > My original intent, which I thought I had expressed clearly in > previous discussions, is a more fundamental issue with the Associate > Membership category: lack of value addition. This issue is a parent > issue to the proposed clarifying text. It must be addressed first to > pave way for, and inform any clarifying text on Associate Membership > in the bylaws. > > Now just to be clear, I am not advocating for voting rights per se. > What I am advocating for is value addition for every membership > category. The idea of a membership category that collects fees but > offers no value in return just doesn't sit well with me. > > My proposal is that we find substantial value for this category. If we > can't, I believe the membership category makes no sense and should > effectively be dropped all together. > > I hope this provides more clarity on my views. > > Regards, > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From geier at geier.ne.tz Mon Sep 19 09:59:21 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:59:21 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <825d13dd-9475-553e-a23e-298e45ecdd37@geier.ne.tz> Hello all, I have a question about item 12 (last, "Policies introduced by the Board") among the proposed changes. So far we have "measuring of acceptance" at the PDP meetings, no "approval" or "voting". This suggestion introduces "endorsement" during the PDP meeting, while all other PDP decisions are officially done on the mailing list. Is the endorsement to be required from all(?) or majority(?) of ... ... people in the room? remote participation? Sorry, the intention is definitely good, but I happen to have more questions.... Regards, Frank On 9/16/2016 5:17 PM, Alan Barrett 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 > From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Sep 19 10:08:21 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:08:21 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <6C40F862-54C2-4ECE-B962-EF396F010F90@afrinic.net> > On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji 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. Instead of legislating geographical diversity in the Bylaws, I would prefer to rely on the membership to consider all kinds of diversity when voting. Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority. Would adding geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support to pass? Alan Barrett From abibu at tznic.or.tz Mon Sep 19 10:23:23 2016 From: abibu at tznic.or.tz (Abibu Ntahigiye) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:23:23 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <4af4886c-c23f-d874-5ec9-998248e21dc3@geier.ne.tz> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <389b4cba-7ce9-0dac-aab7-246abc1bd815@geier.ne.tz> <4af4886c-c23f-d874-5ec9-998248e21dc3@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <74463841-E2E1-429C-9EF9-ED7D98A101DE@tznic.or.tz> +1 to Frank. The PRIMARY value to Associate members should be reflected in the association with Afrinic and not Voting. The PRIMARY value to resource members are the resources from Afrinic. rgds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Abibu R. Ntahigiye. On Sep 19, 2016, at 12:49 PM, Frank Habicht wrote: > Hi Douglas, > > valid points. > One small "value addition" is of course the "priceless" association with > AfriNIC. I trust that for "some, but only a few" entities this could be > enough value. > > But beyond that I think the question is: "how much more value does > AfriNIC want to give and how many more associate members do we wish to get?" > > We probably have diverse answers to this. I personally prefer if we can > find enough seats at the members' meeting ;-) > > About dropping the category altogether: I don't object. But maybe there > are a number of entities that would want to become associate members, > just because they like that, and without voting rights...??? > (I don't know) > > Regards, > Frank > > > > On 9/19/2016 11:05 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: >> Hi Frank, et al, >> On 19 September 2016 at 06:49, Frank Habicht wrote: >>> I agree, with all of the above. Well said. >>> Considering that someone could control many legal entities, and these >>> could all become associate members, that could change voting outcomes >>> very much into that someone's favour. >> >> My original intent, which I thought I had expressed clearly in >> previous discussions, is a more fundamental issue with the Associate >> Membership category: lack of value addition. This issue is a parent >> issue to the proposed clarifying text. It must be addressed first to >> pave way for, and inform any clarifying text on Associate Membership >> in the bylaws. >> >> Now just to be clear, I am not advocating for voting rights per se. >> What I am advocating for is value addition for every membership >> category. The idea of a membership category that collects fees but >> offers no value in return just doesn't sit well with me. >> >> My proposal is that we find substantial value for this category. If we >> can't, I believe the membership category makes no sense and should >> effectively be dropped all together. >> >> I hope this provides more clarity on my views. >> >> Regards, >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 10:25:59 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:25:59 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Seun, On 19 September 2016 at 12:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > 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 am averse to adding any language that engenders regional balance for the Independent Director. The very essence of the Independent Seat, as captured in 13.4.ii of the bylaws (text below), is to accommodate other competences/dimensions/criteria other than regional balance. Adding any such language would make the Independent Director no different from Regional Directors, which would make it cease to be unique/relevant. However, given the realities on the ground -- like the scenario we had during out last election -- I would support making this an additional/optional criteria for NomCom to use when enough candidates have been presented. Bylaws extract: 13.4.ii: Two Directors elected ... upon the recommendation of the NomCom based on their competencies and not their regional representation. From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Sep 19 10:28:08 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:28:08 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <825d13dd-9475-553e-a23e-298e45ecdd37@geier.ne.tz> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <825d13dd-9475-553e-a23e-298e45ecdd37@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <565757CC-9E43-4332-940E-7B6B08102FF1@afrinic.net> > On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:59, Frank Habicht wrote: > > Hello all, > > I have a question about item 12 (last, "Policies introduced by the > Board") among the proposed changes. > > So far we have "measuring of acceptance" at the PDP meetings, no > "approval" or "voting". > > This suggestion introduces "endorsement" during the PDP meeting, while > all other PDP decisions are officially done on the mailing list. > > Is the endorsement to be required from all(?) or majority(?) of ... > ... people in the room? remote participation? > > Sorry, the intention is definitely good, but I happen to have more > questions?. That?s a very good question. What would you like the answer to be? Alan Barrett From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 10:32:21 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:32:21 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Douglas Onyango wrote: > Hi Seun, > > However, given the realities on the ground -- like the scenario we had > during out last election -- I would support making this an > additional/optional criteria for NomCom to use when enough candidates > have been presented. > SO: I think the intent is clear and your proposal above could address it. So if i get you correctly, you are suggesting to put such criteria into the guideline instead? Cheers! > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 10:38:05 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 13:38:05 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Seun, On 19 September 2016 at 13:32, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Douglas Onyango > SO: I think the intent is clear and your proposal above could address it. So > if i get you correctly, you are suggesting to put such criteria into the > guideline instead? Yes. I would support adding this to the guideline with a disclaimer of: "to the extend possible......". This and other dimensions - like gender diversity - could guide Nomcom in discharging its role. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 10:52:31 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:52:31 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <6C40F862-54C2-4ECE-B962-EF396F010F90@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <6C40F862-54C2-4ECE-B962-EF396F010F90@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > > On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > > > > Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority. Would adding > geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support > to pass? > SO: I think thats fair enough, looks like suggested approach from the subsequent discussions seem to be helpful. Cheers! > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 geier at geier.ne.tz Mon Sep 19 11:09:23 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:09:23 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <565757CC-9E43-4332-940E-7B6B08102FF1@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <825d13dd-9475-553e-a23e-298e45ecdd37@geier.ne.tz> <565757CC-9E43-4332-940E-7B6B08102FF1@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <6ff1842b-0113-0aa9-f2cd-b327cfd47be5@geier.ne.tz> Hi Alan, rough thoughts... 1. announcement to PDP list as soon as practically possible after the resolution of the board (max 7 calendar days) 2. discussion in the next PDP meeting with gauging acceptance (like any policy proposal) 3. few weeks last call (after PDP meeting minutes posted to mailing list) 4. call of consensus or not by PDP chairs 5. no ratification of board - instead either a) notification of positive consensus from PDP chairs to all or b) 11.3 (ii) as proposed optionally, but I like: - if "overwhelming approval" on the mailing list between 1. and 2. the PDP chairs can call consensus (unsure how to word the optional last item) what do others think? Frank On 9/19/2016 1:28 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:59, Frank Habicht wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I have a question about item 12 (last, "Policies introduced by the >> Board") among the proposed changes. >> >> So far we have "measuring of acceptance" at the PDP meetings, no >> "approval" or "voting". >> >> This suggestion introduces "endorsement" during the PDP meeting, while >> all other PDP decisions are officially done on the mailing list. >> >> Is the endorsement to be required from all(?) or majority(?) of ... >> ... people in the room? remote participation? >> >> Sorry, the intention is definitely good, but I happen to have more >> questions?. > > That?s a very good question. What would you like the answer to be? > > 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 Sep 19 11:25:29 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:25:29 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <6ff1842b-0113-0aa9-f2cd-b327cfd47be5@geier.ne.tz> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <825d13dd-9475-553e-a23e-298e45ecdd37@geier.ne.tz> <565757CC-9E43-4332-940E-7B6B08102FF1@afrinic.net> <6ff1842b-0113-0aa9-f2cd-b327cfd47be5@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <1B6182D7-24D6-492E-B3AA-519D1201A674@afrinic.net> > On 19 Sep 2016, at 15:09, Frank Habicht wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > rough thoughts... > > 1. announcement to PDP list as soon as practically possible after the > resolution of the board (max 7 calendar days) > 2. discussion in the next PDP meeting with gauging acceptance > (like any policy proposal) > 3. few weeks last call (after PDP meeting minutes posted to mailing > list) > 4. call of consensus or not by PDP chairs > 5. no ratification of board - instead either > a) notification of positive consensus from PDP chairs to all or > b) 11.3 (ii) as proposed > > optionally, but I like: > - if "overwhelming approval" on the mailing list between 1. and 2. > the PDP chairs can call consensus > > (unsure how to word the optional last item) That sounds too complicated to encode in the Bylaws. Remember that we are considering the situation where the Board decides that it has to make policy without going through the normal process. Perhaps there?s an emergency; perhaps there?s a policy proposal that has majority support but there are enough objections to prevent rough consensus; or perhaps there?s some other reason for the Board to bypass the normal process. I?d suggest a simple vote, where the community can decide that the Board was wrong. Since it involves policy, it should probably be a vote of PDWG participants, not a vote of Members. Alan Barrett From christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd Mon Sep 19 12:09:54 2016 From: christian.bope at unikin.ac.cd (Christian Bope) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:09:54 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 12:14:26 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 12:14:26 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <1B019C90-A097-46AB-B656-31FB5EB3067E@afrinic.net> <829A8FE6-9593-44B6-9343-CCA0D92D1B32@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: Hi Community, Well done Chris ! I support that effort be made to build consensus, as the topics are very important. Regards Arnaud 2016-09-19 12:09 GMT+00:00 Christian Bope : > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mon Sep 19 12:25:15 2016 From: christianbope at gmail.com (Bope Domilongo Christian) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:25:15 +0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: 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> wrote: > I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Mike Silber > *Reply-To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC > *Date: *Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 > *To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC > *Cc: *"members-discuss at afrinic.net" > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws > changes > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > 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 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Mon Sep 19 12:32:03 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:32:03 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 19 Sep 2016 13:28, "Douglas Onyango" wrote: > > Adding any such language would make the Independent Director no > different from Regional Directors, which would make it cease to be > unique/relevant. > Is there anything unique with any of the independents who have been elected this far. As far as i can tell, the individuals get to the board and play by the same rules... > However, given the realities on the ground -- like the scenario we had > during out last election -- I would support making this an > additional/optional criteria for NomCom to use when enough candidates > have been presented. > +1 ... else you end up with what we have now. Its a huge contininent with lots of competent folk if you will. I read ....*Diversity* Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Sep 19 13:04:23 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:04:23 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Noah, On 19 Sep 2016 15:32, "Noah" wrote: > Is there anything unique with any of the independents who have been elected this far. As far as i can tell, the individuals get to the board and play by the same rules... > While you are right about the similarity in post-election mandate, the relevant bylaw section, and indeed this thread is about the election of the Independent Seat. To date, regional diversity has not been a criteria for shortlisting candidates for the Independent Seat. This fact differentiates the Independent from the Segional seats on the board. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Alain.Aina at wacren.net Mon Sep 19 19:56:20 2016 From: Alain.Aina at wacren.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:56:20 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@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 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 > wrote: > I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. > > > > Thanks > > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: Mike Silber > > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net " > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes > > > > > > On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > 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 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-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 Mon Sep 19 20:14:21 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:14:21 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> Message-ID: +1 @Alain Regards Arnaud 2016-09-19 19:56 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA : > 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> 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 com> wrote: > >> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Mike Silber >> *Reply-To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC > > >> *Date: *Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 >> *To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC >> *Cc: *"members-discuss at afrinic.net" >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws >> changes >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry >> 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 >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-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 Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Sep 20 05:27:59 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 05:27:59 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> Message-ID: <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> 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. 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? 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. Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: "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 >: 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 > 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 > wrote: I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. Thanks Andrew From: Mike Silber > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > 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 https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-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 Alain.Aina at wacren.net Tue Sep 20 21:16:36 2016 From: Alain.Aina at wacren.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 01:16:36 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hi, > On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston 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 > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "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 >: >> 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 > 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 > wrote: >>>> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Mike Silber > >>>> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > >>>> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 >>>> To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > >>>> Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net " > >>>> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > 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 >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Community-Discuss mailing list >>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Sep 21 04:08:31 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:08:31 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> ? Not sure. ?We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work smoothly You are correct Alain, we did. Except ? well, somethings changed ? the bylaws. Under the *current* bylaws, you can?t do a review and change them without a super majority vote. Under the old bylaws, well, I can?t remember exactly what they said, but I can tell you quite categorically that there was no super majority vote to bring the current ones into existence ? I hope I am correct in saying, this was because it wasn?t required under those bylaws not that it was simply neglected. I know for a fact though that such a vote did not occur ? because such a vote requires notice issued to the community under specific time frames in the context of a members meeting, and all the voting mechanisms that are needed to hold such a vote. So ? what worked to change the old bylaws, is not relevant under the legal constraints we committed ourselves to the day the current bylaws took effect. Under the change you reference, a committee could get together, gather ideas, formulate them into a new draft, propose it, and consensus could actually take you to the new bylaws. That is simply not allowed under the current bylaws. Let us look for a second at what the current bylaws say: Firstly ? under definitions ? special resolution is defined as ?A resolution approved by a majority of 75 percent of the votes of those members entitled to vote and voting on the question? Secondly ? under section 7 (powers of members), sub-section 6.vi ? ?consider and approve by Special Resolution, if appropriate, proposals for the revocation, amendment or replacement of this Constitution? Thirdly ? under section 12.14 (Member proposals) ? subsection ii, ?A member may give written notice to the Board of a matter which the Member proposes to raise for discussion or resolution at the next Annual General Member Meeting called under Article 11.1 of this Constitution at which the member is entitled to vote? (Rest of the provisions of clause 12.14 go on to define the time lines for proposals and the mechanism by which it works). So ? in my non-legal laymans view ? what this says is. A.) You need a super majority to change the bylaws ? this cannot be a decision of a committee. (Combination of section 7 clauses cited and definitions clause cited) B.) Changes to the bylaws need to be formally put before an AGMM by a *member*, not a committee ? that is not to say that a committee, either formed formally by AfriNIC or created in some other manner, could not give their proposals to a member to put to the floor ? but the proposals have to be submitted formally through the procedures defined in section 12.14. None of this was really the case under the old bylaws ? it is now the rules ? so again, I ask you, in the context of the above, what?s the point of the committee? What?s the point of consensus in this context - other than to judge if putting something before the floor has a hope of achieving the number of votes actually necessary to pass (and this is a VERY valid use of consensus, as a gauge, but it is not more than that) To close what I?ve said above, let me end with two quotes ?If we are to survive, we must have ideas, vision, and courage. These things are rarely produced by committees. Everything that matters in our intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own mind and conscience in a room by himself? - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ?It is necessary to get a lot of men together, for the show of things, otherwise the world will not believe. That is the meaning of committees. But the real work must always be done by one or two men? ? Anthony Trollope. (Btw, the second of those quotes ? it may be true that people want the show of things ? and if that is what this committee will be ? a charade ? so be it ? but let?s not lose site of the fact that bylaw changes have to be put to the floor by individual members) Andrew ? ? ? From:?Arnaud AMELINA Reply-To:?General Discussions of AFRINIC Date:?Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 To:?General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc:?"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 : 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 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 wrote: I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. ? Thanks ? Andrew ? ? From:?Mike Silber Reply-To:?General Discussions of AFRINIC Date:?Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 To:?General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc:?"members-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject:?Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes ? ? On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry 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 https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss ? _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ? _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ? _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 06:01:10 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 07:01:10 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Dear all, I do have a few comments as an individual and resource member: 1. What I understand staff is doing at the moment is trying to get the community's views on the possible changes to the bylaw as reflected in the document shared which I expect would have been what the committee would do as well. I would be strongly opposed to a committee that doesn't engage the community in a manner currently done. 2. A few number of comments has been made indicating addition of new changes to the list presented by staff and I expect that those will be included as well. 3. Where consensus comes in here is to determine whether a particular modification to the bylaw should even be presented on the floor in the first place. This stage gives opportunity for the community who don't fall within the "registered and resource members" category to raise their views and hopefully it would convince those who have the approval rights(as per current bylaw) to nod. 4. At the meeting, I expect that each changes proposed would be presented as a septate package and not as a whole. However, in other to maximise our time at the meeting, it may be good for those that seem to have overwhelming community view against not to be presented(i.e those without consensus). Nevertheless, if there are some part of the community who feel strongly to include it then i think it should be included as such inclusion doesn't imply approval afterall Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 21 Sep 2016 5:09 a.m., "Andrew Alston" wrote: > ? Not sure. We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work > smoothly > > You are correct Alain, we did. Except ? well, somethings changed ? the > bylaws. > > Under the *current* bylaws, you can?t do a review and change them without > a super majority vote. Under the old bylaws, well, I can?t remember > exactly what they said, but I can tell you quite categorically that there > was no super majority vote to bring the current ones into existence ? I > hope I am correct in saying, this was because it wasn?t required under > those bylaws not that it was simply neglected. I know for a fact though > that such a vote did not occur ? because such a vote requires notice issued > to the community under specific time frames in the context of a members > meeting, and all the voting mechanisms that are needed to hold such a vote. > > So ? what worked to change the old bylaws, is not relevant under the legal > constraints we committed ourselves to the day the current bylaws took > effect. Under the change you reference, a committee could get together, > gather ideas, formulate them into a new draft, propose it, and consensus > could actually take you to the new bylaws. That is simply not allowed > under the current bylaws. > > Let us look for a second at what the current bylaws say: > > Firstly ? under definitions ? special resolution is defined as ?A > resolution approved by a majority of 75 percent of the votes of those > members entitled to vote and voting on the question? > Secondly ? under section 7 (powers of members), sub-section 6.vi ? > ?consider and approve by Special Resolution, if appropriate, proposals for > the revocation, amendment or replacement of this Constitution? > Thirdly ? under section 12.14 (Member proposals) ? subsection ii, ?A > member may give written notice to the Board of a matter which the Member > proposes to raise for discussion or resolution at the next Annual General > Member Meeting called under Article 11.1 of this Constitution at which the > member is entitled to vote? > > (Rest of the provisions of clause 12.14 go on to define the time lines for > proposals and the mechanism by which it works). > > So ? in my non-legal laymans view ? what this says is. > > A.) You need a super majority to change the bylaws ? this cannot be a > decision of a committee. (Combination of section 7 clauses cited and > definitions clause cited) > B.) Changes to the bylaws need to be formally put before an AGMM by a > *member*, not a committee ? that is not to say that a committee, either > formed formally by AfriNIC or created in some other manner, could not give > their proposals to a member to put to the floor ? but the proposals have to > be submitted formally through the procedures defined in section 12.14. > > None of this was really the case under the old bylaws ? it is now the > rules ? so again, I ask you, in the context of the above, what?s the point > of the committee? What?s the point of consensus in this context - other > than to judge if putting something before the floor has a hope of achieving > the number of votes actually necessary to pass (and this is a VERY valid > use of consensus, as a gauge, but it is not more than that) > > To close what I?ve said above, let me end with two quotes > > ?If we are to survive, we must have ideas, vision, and courage. These > things are rarely produced by committees. Everything that matters in our > intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own > mind and conscience in a room by himself? - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. > > ?It is necessary to get a lot of men together, for the show of things, > otherwise the world will not believe. That is the meaning of committees. > But the real work must always be done by one or two men? ? Anthony Trollope. > > (Btw, the second of those quotes ? it may be true that people want the > show of things ? and if that is what this committee will be ? a charade ? > so be it ? but let?s not lose site of the fact that bylaw changes have to > be put to the floor by individual members) > > Andrew > > > > > From: Arnaud AMELINA > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "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 : > 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> 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 com> wrote: > I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > From: Mike Silber > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes > > > On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > 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 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Wed Sep 21 07:47:50 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:47:50 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: This is what I see - - CEO alone (an interested party) essentially doing the accountability review if he is collating and interpreting the online comment - claims of off-list inputs which should just never happen unless under clear and communicated procedure I have worked with other non-profits and observed many. The most common way for non-profits to do a bylaws review is a committee composed of folks who represent a full cross-section of the community. -Omo On 21 September 2016 at 09:01, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Dear all, > > I do have a few comments as an individual and resource member: > > 1. What I understand staff is doing at the moment is trying to get the > community's views on the possible changes to the bylaw as reflected in the > document shared which I expect would have been what the committee would do > as well. I would be strongly opposed to a committee that doesn't engage the > community in a manner currently done. > > 2. A few number of comments has been made indicating addition of new > changes to the list presented by staff and I expect that those will be > included as well. > > 3. Where consensus comes in here is to determine whether a particular > modification to the bylaw should even be presented on the floor in the > first place. This stage gives opportunity for the community who don't fall > within the "registered and resource members" category to raise their views > and hopefully it would convince those who have the approval rights(as per > current bylaw) to nod. > > 4. At the meeting, I expect that each changes proposed would be presented > as a septate package and not as a whole. However, in other to maximise our > time at the meeting, it may be good for those that seem to have > overwhelming community view against not to be presented(i.e those without > consensus). Nevertheless, if there are some part of the community who feel > strongly to include it then i think it should be included as such inclusion > doesn't imply approval afterall > > Regards > Sent from my LG G4 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos > > On 21 Sep 2016 5:09 a.m., "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > >> ? Not sure. We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work >> smoothly >> >> You are correct Alain, we did. Except ? well, somethings changed ? the >> bylaws. >> >> Under the *current* bylaws, you can?t do a review and change them without >> a super majority vote. Under the old bylaws, well, I can?t remember >> exactly what they said, but I can tell you quite categorically that there >> was no super majority vote to bring the current ones into existence ? I >> hope I am correct in saying, this was because it wasn?t required under >> those bylaws not that it was simply neglected. I know for a fact though >> that such a vote did not occur ? because such a vote requires notice issued >> to the community under specific time frames in the context of a members >> meeting, and all the voting mechanisms that are needed to hold such a vote. >> >> So ? what worked to change the old bylaws, is not relevant under the >> legal constraints we committed ourselves to the day the current bylaws took >> effect. Under the change you reference, a committee could get together, >> gather ideas, formulate them into a new draft, propose it, and consensus >> could actually take you to the new bylaws. That is simply not allowed >> under the current bylaws. >> >> Let us look for a second at what the current bylaws say: >> >> Firstly ? under definitions ? special resolution is defined as ?A >> resolution approved by a majority of 75 percent of the votes of those >> members entitled to vote and voting on the question? >> Secondly ? under section 7 (powers of members), sub-section 6.vi ? >> ?consider and approve by Special Resolution, if appropriate, proposals for >> the revocation, amendment or replacement of this Constitution? >> Thirdly ? under section 12.14 (Member proposals) ? subsection ii, ?A >> member may give written notice to the Board of a matter which the Member >> proposes to raise for discussion or resolution at the next Annual General >> Member Meeting called under Article 11.1 of this Constitution at which the >> member is entitled to vote? >> >> (Rest of the provisions of clause 12.14 go on to define the time lines >> for proposals and the mechanism by which it works). >> >> So ? in my non-legal laymans view ? what this says is. >> >> A.) You need a super majority to change the bylaws ? this cannot be a >> decision of a committee. (Combination of section 7 clauses cited and >> definitions clause cited) >> B.) Changes to the bylaws need to be formally put before an AGMM by a >> *member*, not a committee ? that is not to say that a committee, either >> formed formally by AfriNIC or created in some other manner, could not give >> their proposals to a member to put to the floor ? but the proposals have to >> be submitted formally through the procedures defined in section 12.14. >> >> None of this was really the case under the old bylaws ? it is now the >> rules ? so again, I ask you, in the context of the above, what?s the point >> of the committee? What?s the point of consensus in this context - other >> than to judge if putting something before the floor has a hope of achieving >> the number of votes actually necessary to pass (and this is a VERY valid >> use of consensus, as a gauge, but it is not more than that) >> >> To close what I?ve said above, let me end with two quotes >> >> ?If we are to survive, we must have ideas, vision, and courage. These >> things are rarely produced by committees. Everything that matters in our >> intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own >> mind and conscience in a room by himself? - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. >> >> ?It is necessary to get a lot of men together, for the show of things, >> otherwise the world will not believe. That is the meaning of committees. >> But the real work must always be done by one or two men? ? Anthony Trollope. >> >> (Btw, the second of those quotes ? it may be true that people want the >> show of things ? and if that is what this committee will be ? a charade ? >> so be it ? but let?s not lose site of the fact that bylaw changes have to >> be put to the floor by individual members) >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> From: Arnaud AMELINA >> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 >> To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Cc: "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 : >> 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> 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> wrote: >> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. >> >> Thanks >> >> Andrew >> >> >> From: Mike Silber >> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 >> To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws >> changes >> >> >> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry >> 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 >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Alain.Aina at wacren.net Wed Sep 21 07:56:30 2016 From: Alain.Aina at wacren.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:56:30 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Andrew, Let me now put it in a few bullets: 1- What worked well and could be implemented is the approach and method. 2- Nobody is saying a committee to adopt by itself the amendments to the bylaws. Just to lead and get a consensual proposal in front of those who are entitled to adopt them. 3- Yes. lot of changes were made in the current bylaws from the previous. but still? Who are the people entitled to approve change to the bylaws? The point 11 of the accountability assessment document being discussed* answers it. See below ===================== 11. Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution: The Bylaws say how the AFRINIC Members may change the Bylaws, but the Companies Act say that the Registered Members can change it. Consider requiring that the Bylaws/Constitution may be changed only after a Special Resolution by all AFRINIC Members in terms of Bylaws 7.6(vi) , so that the Registered Members (the same nine people as the Directors) cannot act without broader approval. ================================= That is why i said, in the current legal context, your ?Super Majority? could be ?Super Majority of the Registered members only? and these people do not need other members or community inputs or views before acting. Engaging other members and the community is very good. What people are saying is just to follow the best appropriate approach for this accountability improvement review of the bylaws. I hope this helps ?Alain (*)https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000263.html > On Sep 21, 2016, at 8:08 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > ? Not sure. We did a bylaws review in 2012 and the approach did work smoothly > > You are correct Alain, we did. Except ? well, somethings changed ? the bylaws. > > Under the *current* bylaws, you can?t do a review and change them without a super majority vote. Under the old bylaws, well, I can?t remember exactly what they said, but I can tell you quite categorically that there was no super majority vote to bring the current ones into existence ? I hope I am correct in saying, this was because it wasn?t required under those bylaws not that it was simply neglected. I know for a fact though that such a vote did not occur ? because such a vote requires notice issued to the community under specific time frames in the context of a members meeting, and all the voting mechanisms that are needed to hold such a vote. > > So ? what worked to change the old bylaws, is not relevant under the legal constraints we committed ourselves to the day the current bylaws took effect. Under the change you reference, a committee could get together, gather ideas, formulate them into a new draft, propose it, and consensus could actually take you to the new bylaws. That is simply not allowed under the current bylaws. > > Let us look for a second at what the current bylaws say: > > Firstly ? under definitions ? special resolution is defined as ?A resolution approved by a majority of 75 percent of the votes of those members entitled to vote and voting on the question? > Secondly ? under section 7 (powers of members), sub-section 6.vi ? ?consider and approve by Special Resolution, if appropriate, proposals for the revocation, amendment or replacement of this Constitution? > Thirdly ? under section 12.14 (Member proposals) ? subsection ii, ?A member may give written notice to the Board of a matter which the Member proposes to raise for discussion or resolution at the next Annual General Member Meeting called under Article 11.1 of this Constitution at which the member is entitled to vote? > > (Rest of the provisions of clause 12.14 go on to define the time lines for proposals and the mechanism by which it works). > > So ? in my non-legal laymans view ? what this says is. > > A.) You need a super majority to change the bylaws ? this cannot be a decision of a committee. (Combination of section 7 clauses cited and definitions clause cited) > B.) Changes to the bylaws need to be formally put before an AGMM by a *member*, not a committee ? that is not to say that a committee, either formed formally by AfriNIC or created in some other manner, could not give their proposals to a member to put to the floor ? but the proposals have to be submitted formally through the procedures defined in section 12.14. > > None of this was really the case under the old bylaws ? it is now the rules ? so again, I ask you, in the context of the above, what?s the point of the committee? What?s the point of consensus in this context - other than to judge if putting something before the floor has a hope of achieving the number of votes actually necessary to pass (and this is a VERY valid use of consensus, as a gauge, but it is not more than that) > > To close what I?ve said above, let me end with two quotes > > ?If we are to survive, we must have ideas, vision, and courage. These things are rarely produced by committees. Everything that matters in our intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own mind and conscience in a room by himself? - Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. > > ?It is necessary to get a lot of men together, for the show of things, otherwise the world will not believe. That is the meaning of committees. But the real work must always be done by one or two men? ? Anthony Trollope. > > (Btw, the second of those quotes ? it may be true that people want the show of things ? and if that is what this committee will be ? a charade ? so be it ? but let?s not lose site of the fact that bylaw changes have to be put to the floor by individual members) > > Andrew > > > > > From: Arnaud AMELINA > > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Cc: "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 >: > 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 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 wrote: > I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > From: Mike Silber > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes > > > On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry 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 > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 21 08:10:44 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:10:44 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: I see a few people suggesting that a committee should review the bylaws. I agree, and the new Governance Committee will have that as one of its tasks. However, I think that the already-identified issues should be handled as soon as possible, not waiting for a committee. We have a special general meeting coming up in November, and bylaws changes can be passed as special resolutions, needing a 75% majority). Alan Barrett From saul at enetworks.co.za Wed Sep 21 08:12:10 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:12:10 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com>, Message-ID: <103501d213df$da41b620$8ec52260$@enetworks.co.za> Hi, Agreed, having associate members is beneficial in both directions and this membership category is common an many organisations in all industries/membership based organisations. 1) External parties have experience and knowledge in the outcome of the organisation 2) External parties might have in interest due to interoperability with said organisation 3) The organisation can learn from the experiences of others Organisations that have do direct benefit in the outcomes of decisions should not be allowed to vote since the outcome would not benefit them, the result being their vote could be wasted! So associate membership is a must, but no voting rights. Category membership fees is debatable. PS please can we keep the subject at least vaguely related to the subject of the email. From: Ben Roberts [mailto:Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com] Sent: 20 September 2016 11:44 PM To: ALAIN AINA Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; members-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes 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 > wrote: Hi, On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston > 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 > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "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>: 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> 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.htm l 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> wrote: I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. Thanks Andrew From: Mike Silber < silber.mike at gmail.com> Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC < community-discuss at afrinic.net> Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 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 On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry < 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 https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 geier at geier.ne.tz Wed Sep 21 08:13:29 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:13:29 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hi, On 9/21/2016 10:47 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > This is what I see - > > - CEO alone ... I am sure that a committee would be a way to ensure that nothing gets ready for voting in the next meeting. If that's an acceptable outcome, a committee would be an option. > - claims of off-list inputs .... Maybe some community members would like to submit input through means other than the mailing list. Should they be allowed to do so? I think Yes. Would you prefer to not hear about off-list inputs? In my opinion the CEO is doing a very great and efficient job here and providing a maximum of transparency. This seems to be more transparency than some can take. If you do not trust the CEO to act in the best interest of AfriNIC, then, and only then, "claims of off-list inputs" are a bad thing. I do trust him, and to me this is a good thing. Alan, thank you for the good job you're doing! Regards, Frank From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Wed Sep 21 08:26:45 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 11:26:45 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: > On 21 Sep 2016, at 11:13, Frank Habicht wrote: > > Hi, > > On 9/21/2016 10:47 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: >> This is what I see - >> >> - CEO alone ... > > I am sure that a committee would be a way to ensure that nothing gets > ready for voting in the next meeting. > If that's an acceptable outcome, a committee would be an option. Well, Alan does not seem to agree with you > >> - claims of off-list inputs .... > > Maybe some community members would like to submit input through means > other than the mailing list. Should they be allowed to do so? > I think Yes. > Would you prefer to not hear about off-list inputs? > I would also like to know what these inputs were and have them collated in an appropriate manner that limits opposition. The aim after all is to update and reflect an appropriate balance of power among community, board of directors and the secretariat. > In my opinion the CEO is doing a very great and efficient job here and > providing a maximum of transparency. > This seems to be more transparency > than some can take. A matter of opinion. There is a reason why the majority of similar orgs do it different. > > If you do not trust the CEO to act in the best interest of AfriNIC, > then, and only then, "claims of off-list inputs" are a bad thing. > I do trust him, and to me this is a good thing. More a matter of process and governance than trust. > > Alan, thank you for the good job you're doing! > > Regards, > Frank > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Sep 21 08:58:38 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 12:58:38 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <2CCBBE62-DB28-49FA-9245-7D9A13263768@afrinic.net> > On 21 Sep 2016, at 12:26, Omo Oaiya wrote: >> >>> - claims of off-list inputs .... >> >> Maybe some community members would like to submit input through means >> other than the mailing list. Should they be allowed to do so? >> I think Yes. >> Would you prefer to not hear about off-list inputs? > > I would also like to know what these inputs were and have them collated in an appropriate manner that limits opposition. The aim after all is to update and reflect an appropriate balance of power among community, board of directors and the secretariat. The off-list inputs consisted of people speaking to me in private, repeating things that had also been said on the list. I did not write down who said what. Alan Barrett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Alain.Aina at wacren.net Wed Sep 21 09:08:57 2016 From: Alain.Aina at wacren.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:08:57 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Hi Alan, > On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > I see a few people suggesting that a committee should review the bylaws. > > I agree, and the new Governance Committee will have that as one of its tasks. > > However, I think that the already-identified issues should be handled as soon as possible, not waiting for a committee. The whole discussion was about how we handle the issues. Large consultation and consensus is key. Adoption of the amendments by ?members? votes shall be administrative and legal formalities. > We have a special general meeting coming up in November, and bylaws changes can be passed as special resolutions, needing a 75% majority). OK. Let now look at the 75% majority also called Super Majority. 75% of what ? The Registered members ? The total membership ? BTW: In my mail(*)posted on the 29th June, i suggested that we also improved things here. These points seem to not have been (or yet) considered. 4- Amend 12.10 (ii) to set the quorum at 10% of the total membership either present physically or remotely 5- Amend 12.11 to set minimum number of votes. For all vote, a minimum of votes from 10% of the total eligible voters required. Hope this helps ?Alain (*) https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html > > 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 Sep 21 09:21:43 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:21:43 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: > On 21 Sep 2016, at 13:08, ALAIN AINA wrote: > >> We have a special general meeting coming up in November, and bylaws changes can be passed as special resolutions, needing a 75% majority). > > OK. Let now look at the 75% majority also called Super Majority. 75% of what ? The Registered members ? The total membership ? 75% of the members who exercise their vote. > BTW: In my mail(*)posted on the 29th June, i suggested that we also improved things here. > (*) https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html > These points seem to not have been (or yet) considered. > > 4- Amend 12.10 (ii) to set the quorum at 10% of the total membership either present physically or remotely > > 5- Amend 12.11 to set minimum number of votes. For all vote, a minimum of votes from 10% of the total eligible voters required. Thanks. There were some good ideas in your email, and I will work on converting some of them to bylaws changes for consideration. The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Sep 21 09:25:23 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 13:25:23 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: > On 21 Sep 2016, at 13:08, ALAIN AINA wrote: > The whole discussion was about how we handle the issues. Large consultation and consensus is key. Adoption of the amendments by ?members? votes shall be administrative and legal formalities. Yes, I agree. It?s important to have wide consultation and agreement before there is a vote on bylaws changes. This discussion is part of that process. Alan Barrett From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Sep 21 09:26:28 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 09:26:28 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: <9FD42E58-5AD5-4480-B53F-8828F211BD2B@liquidtelecom.com> As regards the quorum figure ? Please keep in mind that in RIR history most RIR?s average far less than 10%. If the number is two high ? there are implications for that ? which I?m going to leave people to figure out for themselves. But I will say this ? beware of what you ask for ? you may just get it ? with all the unintended consequences. I don?t have a problem with raising the quorum for voting ? and I?m going to leave it to others to propose a number, but I will ask that you think very carefully before proposing a number as to the consequences of us not being able to get quorum. Thanks Andrew On 21/09/2016, 11:21, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > On 21 Sep 2016, at 13:08, ALAIN AINA wrote: > >> We have a special general meeting coming up in November, and bylaws changes can be passed as special resolutions, needing a 75% majority). > > OK. Let now look at the 75% majority also called Super Majority. 75% of what ? The Registered members ? The total membership ? 75% of the members who exercise their vote. > BTW: In my mail(*)posted on the 29th June, i suggested that we also improved things here. > (*) https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html > These points seem to not have been (or yet) considered. > > 4- Amend 12.10 (ii) to set the quorum at 10% of the total membership either present physically or remotely > > 5- Amend 12.11 to set minimum number of votes. For all vote, a minimum of votes from 10% of the total eligible voters required. Thanks. There were some good ideas in your email, and I will work on converting some of them to bylaws changes for consideration. The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. 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 Sep 21 10:24:15 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:24:15 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: > On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 21 Sep 2016, at 13:08, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> The whole discussion was about how we handle the issues. Large consultation and consensus is key. Adoption of the amendments by ?members? votes shall be administrative and legal formalities. > > Yes, I agree. It?s important to have wide consultation and agreement before there is a vote on bylaws changes. This discussion is part of that process. Ack. Thanks ?Alain > > Alan Barrett > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From amelnaud at gmail.com Wed Sep 21 10:59:49 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 10:59:49 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: +1 2016-09-21 10:24 GMT+00:00 ALAIN AINA : > > > On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Alan Barrett > wrote: > > > > > >> On 21 Sep 2016, at 13:08, ALAIN AINA wrote: > >> The whole discussion was about how we handle the issues. Large > consultation and consensus is key. Adoption of the amendments by ?members? > votes shall be administrative and legal formalities. > > > > Yes, I agree. It?s important to have wide consultation and agreement > before there is a vote on bylaws changes. This discussion is part of that > process. > > Ack. Thanks > > ?Alain > > > > 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 Alain.Aina at wacren.net Thu Sep 22 07:51:11 2016 From: Alain.Aina at wacren.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:51:11 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: <9FD42E58-5AD5-4480-B53F-8828F211BD2B@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <9FD42E58-5AD5-4480-B53F-8828F211BD2B@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Hi, > On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > As regards the quorum figure ? > > Please keep in mind that in RIR history most RIR?s average far less than 10%. > > If the number is two high ? there are implications for that ? which I?m going to leave people to figure out for themselves. But I will say this ? beware of what you ask for ? you may just get it ? with all the unintended consequences. > > I don?t have a problem with raising the quorum for voting ? and I?m going to leave it to others to propose a number, but I will ask that you think very carefully before proposing a number as to the consequences of us not being able to get quorum. This is why some keep saying we should give priority to large Consultation and Consensus when addressing important issues as people attending meetings or casting votes may not be that representative (far less than 10% of the eligible voters) Thanks ?Alain > > Thanks > > Andrew > > On 21/09/2016, 11:21, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > >> On 21 Sep 2016, at 13:08, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> >>> We have a special general meeting coming up in November, and bylaws changes can be passed as special resolutions, needing a 75% majority). >> >> OK. Let now look at the 75% majority also called Super Majority. 75% of what ? The Registered members ? The total membership ? > > 75% of the members who exercise their vote. > >> BTW: In my mail(*)posted on the 29th June, i suggested that we also improved things here. >> (*) https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html >> These points seem to not have been (or yet) considered. >> >> 4- Amend 12.10 (ii) to set the quorum at 10% of the total membership either present physically or remotely >> >> 5- Amend 12.11 to set minimum number of votes. For all vote, a minimum of votes from 10% of the total eligible voters required. > > Thanks. There were some good ideas in your email, and I will work on converting some of them to bylaws changes for consideration. > > The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. > > 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 beshun at garnet.edu.gh Thu Sep 22 08:07:41 2016 From: beshun at garnet.edu.gh (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 08:07:41 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Dear Alan, I have a question, will the GC be added to the bye-laws. Special when it states 5.1.2. All of the Board appointed members shall have their principal place of residence in different subregions of the AFRINIC service region. And 5.2.2. All of the elected members shall have their principal place of residence in different subregions of the AFRINIC service region. I wonder how the selection of 5 is going to advance the regional diversity when Afrinic has 6 regions Benjamin On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian < 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 com> wrote: > >> I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Mike Silber >> *Reply-To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC > > >> *Date: *Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 >> *To: *General Discussions of AFRINIC >> *Cc: *"members-discuss at afrinic.net" >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws >> changes >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry >> 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 >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-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 alan.barrett at afrinic.net Thu Sep 22 08:52:30 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:52:30 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> > On 22 Sep 2016, at 12:07, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > Dear Alan, > > I have a question, will the GC be added to the bye-laws. There is no need to add the Governance Committee to the bylaws. It is a committee created by the Board in terms of the Board?s general powers, and the Bylaws section 15.3(x) ?? the Directors shall be entitled to ? appoint such committees for such reasons and with such terms of reference as they shall consider necessary or desirable." > Special when it states > > 5.1.2. All of the Board appointed members shall have their principal place of residence in different subregions of the AFRINIC service region. > > And > > 5.2.2. All of the elected members shall have their principal place of residence in different subregions of the AFRINIC service region. > > I wonder how the selection of 5 is going to advance the regional diversity when Afrinic has 6 regions 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. Alan Barrett From noah at neo.co.tz Thu Sep 22 11:17:25 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:17:25 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 22 Sep 2016 11:55, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > On 22 Sep 2016, at 12:07, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > I have a question, will the GC be added to the bye-laws. > > There is no need to add the Governance Committee to the bylaws. > There is every need for the GC to be in the bylaws so that its formation is guided by the bylawsys. > It is a committee created by the Board in terms of the Board?s general powers, and the Bylaws section 15.3(x) ?? the Directors shall be entitled to ? appoint such committees for such reasons and with such terms of reference as they shall consider necessary or desirable." > The reason is should actually be in the bylawys. > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 12:27:25 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:27:25 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Mr. Alan IHO , While you may not see a problem others might; and it may be wiser to ensure inclusion for transparency and accountability. Having 6 members of GC to guarantee regional participation is a good governance practice. Regards Arnaud Le 22 sept. 2016 08:52, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > On 22 Sep 2016, at 12:07, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > > > Dear Alan, > > > > I have a question, will the GC be added to the bye-laws. > > There is no need to add the Governance Committee to the bylaws. It is a > committee created by the Board in terms of the Board?s general powers, and > the Bylaws section 15.3(x) ?? the Directors shall be entitled to ? appoint > such committees for such reasons and with such terms of reference as they > shall consider necessary or desirable." > > > Special when it states > > > > 5.1.2. All of the Board appointed members shall have their principal > place of residence in different subregions of the AFRINIC service region. > > > > And > > > > 5.2.2. All of the elected members shall have their principal place of > residence in different subregions of the AFRINIC service region. > > > > I wonder how the selection of 5 is going to advance the regional > diversity when Afrinic has 6 regions > > 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. > > 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 Thu Sep 22 12:33:51 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:33:51 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <965259C2-BB91-4822-A7AF-7C8B859F0813@afrinic.net> > On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:27, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Hi Mr. Alan > > IHO , While you may not see a problem others might; and it may be wiser to ensure inclusion for transparency and accountability. Having 6 members of GC to guarantee regional participation is a good governance practice. The Governance Committee terms of reference were decided many months ago. But it?s still not too late. When the Governance Committee startes work in January, it will use the current terms of reference, and there will be five voting members, but the GC will have the ability to suggest changes to its own terms of reference, so it will have tha ability to request an increase in its own size. Alan Barrett From amelnaud at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 12:49:36 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 12:49:36 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <965259C2-BB91-4822-A7AF-7C8B859F0813@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <965259C2-BB91-4822-A7AF-7C8B859F0813@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Thanks for agreeing, but it's not too late. Since we are the beginning of the process, the problem need to be fix now. It will be more difficult for gc to do this. Since GC is a board committee, the board can fix it now, by Vote of registered members ? Regards Arnaud Le 22 sept. 2016 12:34, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > > > On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:27, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > > > Hi Mr. Alan > > > > IHO , While you may not see a problem others might; and it may be wiser > to ensure inclusion for transparency and accountability. Having 6 members > of GC to guarantee regional participation is a good governance practice. > > The Governance Committee terms of reference were decided many months ago. > > But it?s still not too late. When the Governance Committee startes work > in January, it will use the current terms of reference, and there will be > five voting members, but the GC will have the ability to suggest changes to > its own terms of reference, so it will have tha ability to request an > increase in its own size. > > 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 Thu Sep 22 12:58:33 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:58:33 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> <965259C2-BB91-4822-A7AF-7C8B859F0813@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <88D30EA2-5693-40BA-B43D-84EB5CDD6E9D@afrinic.net> > On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:49, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Thanks for agreeing, but it's not too late. Since we are the beginning of the process, the problem need to be fix now. > > It will be more difficult for gc to do this. Since GC is a board committee, the board can fix it now, by Vote of registered members ? The Board has the ability to change the terms of reference, but I hope it will not do so without consultation. The current terms of reference are the result of a consultation process, and the GC itself will be well placed to start another consultation process later. Alan Barrett From sergekbk at gmail.com Thu Sep 22 13:00:24 2016 From: sergekbk at gmail.com (sergekbk) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:00:24 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: <9hn4uidumn5t8hsqon9n1m4w.1474549224990@email.android.com> Hi Alan, Since we are in the process of reviewing Bylaws, it makes sense to make? the GC part of the new Bylaws.?Adding the GC to the bylaws would make the GC formation by a constitution and not by the wish of board. This would eliminate the risk of board choosing to do away with GC by a board vote. A governance and accountability commitment of Afrinic in its charter is in public interest. With Regards. Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Alan Barrett Date: 09/22/2016 13:33 (GMT+01:00) To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes > On 22 Sep 2016, at 16:27, Arnaud AMELINA wrote: > > Hi Mr. Alan > > IHO , While you may not see a problem others might; and it may be wiser to ensure inclusion for transparency and accountability. Having 6 members of GC to guarantee regional participation is a good governance practice. The Governance Committee terms of reference were decided many months ago. But it?s still not too late.? When the Governance Committee startes work in January, it will use the current terms of reference, and there will be five voting members, but the GC will have the ability to suggest changes to its own terms of reference, so it will have tha ability to request an increase in its own size. 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 Thu Sep 22 13:23:09 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:23:09 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <9hn4uidumn5t8hsqon9n1m4w.1474549224990@email.android.com> References: <9hn4uidumn5t8hsqon9n1m4w.1474549224990@email.android.com> Message-ID: <2E080EBA-A35A-4BBA-ACDB-AB6FC0C74A5B@afrinic.net> > On 22 Sep 2016, at 17:00, sergekbk wrote: > Since we are in the process of reviewing Bylaws, it makes sense to make the GC part of the new Bylaws. > Adding the GC to the bylaws would make the GC formation by a constitution and not by the wish of board. > This would eliminate the risk of board choosing to do away with GC by a board vote. > A governance and accountability commitment of Afrinic in its charter is in public interest. The Governance Committee charter already prevents the Board from unilaterally voting to do away with it. Alan Barrett From geier at geier.ne.tz Thu Sep 22 15:06:20 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 18:06:20 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <9hn4uidumn5t8hsqon9n1m4w.1474549224990@email.android.com> References: <9hn4uidumn5t8hsqon9n1m4w.1474549224990@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hi Serge, It seems you are proposing a change to the bylaws, and I believe every member can do that. Can you share more specific text, specifying what you want to ad or modify? Then I'm sure one can seek consensus on this list and get a resolution to change the bylaws on the agenda at the next meeting. Greetings, Frank On 9/22/2016 4:00 PM, sergekbk wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > Since we are in the process of reviewing Bylaws, it makes sense to make > the GC part of the new Bylaws. > Adding the GC to the bylaws would make the GC formation by a > constitution and not by the wish of board. > This would eliminate the risk of board choosing to do away with GC by a > board vote. > A governance and accountability commitment of Afrinic in its charter is > in public interest. > > With Regards. > > */Serge Ilunga/* > */Cell: +243814443160/* > */Skype: sergekbk/* > */R.D.Congo/* From sergekbk at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 12:11:55 2016 From: sergekbk at gmail.com (sergekbk) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:11:55 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Message-ID: Hello Frank, Thanks for the suggestion but I think it is more advisable,? that the addition of the GC to bylaws? be included? in the? accountability improvement? changes to the bylaws? being discussed. Kind Regards. Serge IlungaCell: +243814443160Skype: sergekbkR.D.Congo-------- Original message --------From: Frank Habicht Date: 09/22/2016 17:06 (GMT+02:00) To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes Hi Serge, It seems you are proposing a change to the bylaws, and I believe every member can do that. Can you share more specific text, specifying what you want to ad or modify? Then I'm sure one can seek consensus on this list and get a resolution to change the bylaws on the agenda at the next meeting. Greetings, Frank On 9/22/2016 4:00 PM, sergekbk wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > Since we are in the process of reviewing Bylaws, it makes sense to make > the GC part of the new Bylaws. > Adding the GC to the bylaws would make the GC formation by a > constitution and not by the wish of board. > This would eliminate the risk of board choosing to do away with GC by a > board vote. > A governance and accountability commitment of Afrinic in its charter is > in public interest. > > With Regards. > > */Serge Ilunga/* > */Cell: +243814443160/* > */Skype: sergekbk/* > */R.D.Congo/* _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 26 12:22:23 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 14:22:23 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [NomCom2016] Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members Message-ID: Reminder - Just over two weeks to go. NomCom still has not received any (valid) applications. Cross posting is intentional Call for Nominations - AFRINIC Governance Committee (GC) Members ---------------------------------------------------------------- The AFRINIC Governance Committee is a standing committee whose purpose is to advise the AFRINIC Board, AFRINIC Membership, and the community, on matters of governance. NOMCOM is hereby calling for nominations from the community for three individuals to be elected by AFRINIC Membership to serve on the GC as provided for in the GC. NOMCOM would like to receive Nominations from all six of the AFRINIC sub-regions and are explicitly looking for both Gender and Language diversity although a working understanding of the English language would be highly beneficial. The GC Charter is available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1891-afrinic-governance-committee-terms-of-reference The nomination and election process is available at http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/governance-committee/1889-election-and-nomination-process Nomination Requirements: - GC members shall be resident in the AFRINIC service region. - None of the elected members may be an AFRINIC Director, or an AFRINIC employee. - A valid nomination must originate from or be submitted by an authorized and registered contact person of the nominating member organization. The nomination must also be seconded/endorsed by at least one additional AFRINIC member, different from the nominating member organization. Nominators and seconders/endorsers must all be AFRINIC members in good standing. - Self-nominations are permitted and must be endorsed by 2 distinct AFRINIC members in good standing. To nominate yourself or a candidate of your choice, please complete the nomination form at: https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/25/ Nomination deadline is 11 October 2016 at 2000UTC NOMCOM -- Mark James ELKINS - NomCom Chair 2016 - nomcom2016 at afrinic.net mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ NomCom2016 mailing list NomCom2016 at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/nomcom2016 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From aalain at trstech.net Mon Sep 26 12:40:20 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 16:40:20 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: Hello. > On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 21 Sep 2016, at 13:08, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> >>> We have a special general meeting coming up in November, and bylaws changes can be passed as special resolutions, needing a 75% majority). >> >> OK. Let now look at the 75% majority also called Super Majority. 75% of what ? The Registered members ? The total membership ? > > 75% of the members who exercise their vote. > >> BTW: In my mail(*)posted on the 29th June, i suggested that we also improved things here. >> (*) https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2016-June/000350.html >> These points seem to not have been (or yet) considered. >> >> 4- Amend 12.10 (ii) to set the quorum at 10% of the total membership either present physically or remotely >> >> 5- Amend 12.11 to set minimum number of votes. For all vote, a minimum of votes from 10% of the total eligible voters required. > > Thanks. There were some good ideas in your email, and I will work on converting some of them to bylaws changes for consideration. > > The current quorum requirement is 10 members, A very specific "10 members? in person: 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. > which is too small, I agree > but I think 10% is too large. Both in Person and remote( with the appropriate authentication and authorization) ?? Thanks ?Alain > > 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 ondouglas at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 14:22:49 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:22:49 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: Hi Alan, > The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. Regards, -- Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3 UG: +256 776 716 138 From benjamin.eshun at gmail.com Mon Sep 26 17:00:56 2016 From: benjamin.eshun at gmail.com (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:00:56 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Dear Alan, On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Alan Barrett 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. 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. 3. What selection mechanism will be used to guarantee the regional diversity. regards, Benjamin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Sep 26 18:00:34 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 22:00:34 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - committee In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: > On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: > > Hi Alan, >> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. > > Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in > the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something > like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a > pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. Sure, I can get those numbers. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Sep 26 18:29:21 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 22:29:21 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <34694787-5803-4C56-8F85-08461917E638@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <6FB39273-24A7-48DC-B5B3-73FCB8269CA6@afrinic.net> > On 26 Sep 2016, at 21:00, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Alan Barrett 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 From jbmillogo at gmail.com Tue Sep 27 20:08:44 2016 From: jbmillogo at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:08:44 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: Dear CEO, The community and Noah are still waiting your inputs here . With my respect regards 2016-09-16 10:51 GMT+00:00 Noah : > Well > > CEO promised to get back within a week if i read him well... > > Badru was for specifics in terms of timelines... > > I dont know what Owen was talking about or trying to say... > > Jackson said we remain objective at the of the day > > But at the end, I will wait for the CEO's promise of within a week... > > Nice weekend... > > On 16 Sep 2016 13:42, "Andrew Alston" > wrote: > >> Thanks Jackson for your permission for me to speak, its hugely >> appreciated. >> >> Anyway, I'm off to have a nice drink and worry about things that actually >> matter :) >> >> Andrew >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jackson Muthili [mailto:jacksonmuthi at gmail.com] >> Sent: 16 September 2016 13:21 >> To: General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment >> >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Alston < >> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote: >> > It also worries me that people seem to restrict what OTHERS say. >> > >> > If Owen feels like he wishes to comment on something ? he is as free >> > to do so as anyone here is free to say anything. >> >> Has anyone restricted or stopped another from expressing themselves? >> >> > Why do you wish to censor some members of the community? If you don?t >> > like what they say ? feel free to ignore it. >> >> I agree. Just as Alan has chosen to ignore Badrus emails. >> >> > It?s the same way it annoys me when people come to the floor in a PDP >> > meeting and go ?I THINK THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD END AND THIS POLICY >> > SHOULD BE SCRAPPED RIGHT NOW? >> > >> > And ?WHY ARE WE ENTERTAINING THIS POLICY IT HAS HAD NO COMMENTS SO ITS >> > NOT SUPPORTED? >> >> There you go. It annoys you. And that's why others have always let you >> stand in the meeting and belittle and disparage others you dont like or >> agree with. its a free world after all. >> >> > Ignoring the process that specifically lays out a way things are >> > supposed to go. >> > >> > Here is a big hint ? don?t like something, you?re free to ignore it, >> > or, in this case, free to bitch and whine about it ? but honestly, >> > whining about things because you don?t like what someone says without >> > adding anything constructive to the debate just indicates a level of >> > insecurity and is pretty boring. >> > >> > And well ? that?s me exercising my freedom of speech and if you don?t >> > what I?ve said here, you?re free to ignore it, or whine some more, not >> > like it makes a difference to me. >> >> Exactly my point. Speak up freely. You are even free to abuse the >> docility of a community and belittle them as you wish. After all, you are >> exercising your freedom of speech. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- 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 alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Sep 28 06:51:33 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:51:33 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> Message-ID: <66C1A6D6-B2C3-4D6A-89F8-B8F54920DE05@afrinic.net> > On 28 Sep 2016, at 00:08, Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO wrote: > > Dear CEO, > > The community and Noah are still waiting your inputs here . > > With my respect regards > > 2016-09-16 10:51 GMT+00:00 Noah : > Well > > CEO promised to get back within a week if i read him well... > > Badru was for specifics in terms of timelines... > > I dont know what Owen was talking about or trying to say... > > Jackson said we remain objective at the of the day > > But at the end, I will wait for the CEO's promise of within a week? I sent the message within the week, as promised. Here?s a link to my message: . Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Wed Sep 28 06:58:48 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:58:48 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> Message-ID: <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> > On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: >> >> Hi Alan, >>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. >> >> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in >> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something >> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a >> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. > > Sure, I can get those numbers. Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who attended the meetings. 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 resource members in the future. Alan From dewole at tinitop.com Wed Sep 28 07:55:49 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:55:49 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage (of something or the other)? Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were to double in a year or two. Dewole. On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alan, >>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. >>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in >>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something >>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a >>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. >> Sure, I can get those numbers. > Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who attended the meetings. > > 2013 2014 2015 2016 > E-Votes 58 59 49 183 > On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 > TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > > Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 resource members in the future. > > Alan > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From ondouglas at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 08:16:08 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:16:08 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Alan, On 28 Sep 2016 09:58, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 resource members in the future. > 30 Resource Members sounds good to me. I am fine using the percentage (~2%) instead, to ensure automatic adjustment of quorum that corresponds with changes in our membership. As for the Directors, et al, I would like those to be left as they are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Wed Sep 28 08:31:09 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:31:09 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <2c9001d21962$a9f23d40$fdd6b7c0$@enetworks.co.za> A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a quorum can include online participants and then how to carer for the voting... As the stats show, a large number of people voted, but might night have been present and a number of onsite votes were probably proxies (although that would count towards a quorum) -----Original Message----- From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at tinitop.com] Sent: 28 September 2016 09:56 AM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage (of something or the other)? Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were to double in a year or two. Dewole. On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: >>> >>> Hi Alan, >>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. >>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in >>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something >>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a >>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. >> Sure, I can get those numbers. > Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who attended the meetings. > > 2013 2014 2015 2016 > E-Votes 58 59 49 183 > On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 > TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > > Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 resource members in the future. > > Alan > _______________________________________________ > 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 dewole at tinitop.com Wed Sep 28 08:56:11 2016 From: dewole at tinitop.com (Dewole Ajao) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:56:11 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <2c9001d21962$a9f23d40$fdd6b7c0$@enetworks.co.za> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <2c9001d21962$a9f23d40$fdd6b7c0$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <98403a71-169a-a651-70e4-88e2bd5c4ca6@tinitop.com> It makes sense for a meeting quorum to include online participants since the point of that option is to ensure that members do not miss out because of inability to physically attend. On the operational side, a meeting that fails to meet quorum for whatever reason also means more resources expended by the organization (and the less than 30 members in attendance). Tracking remote participation would however require authentication e.g. by having members connect to the stream via MyAFRINIC rather than as guests. And then we will have to agree on what exactly constitutes meeting attendance... Would it be by... Connection to the stream for at least 75% of the meeting session? Connection to the stream during certain critical sessions? Keep-alive comment from remote member every X minutes so we are sure the remote participant is still an active part of the discussion? It requires some thought. Dewole. On 28/09/2016 09:31, Saul Stein wrote: > A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a > quorum can include online participants and then how to carer for the > voting... > As the stats show, a large number of people voted, but might night have > been present and a number of onsite votes were probably proxies (although > that would count towards a quorum) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at tinitop.com] > Sent: 28 September 2016 09:56 AM > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage > (of something or the other)? > > Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were to > double in a year or two. > > Dewole. > > > On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett > wrote: >>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alan, >>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but > I think 10% is too large. >>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in >>>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something >>>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a >>>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. >>> Sure, I can get those numbers. >> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The > number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who > attended the meetings. >> 2013 2014 2015 2016 >> E-Votes 58 59 49 183 >> On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 >> TOTAL 103 125 126 245 >> >> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 > resource members in the future. >> Alan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 From mje at posix.co.za Wed Sep 28 09:07:49 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:07:49 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <50e83497-56a7-15a2-1cf9-0086b70850bd@posix.co.za> I think revisiting the quorum every three or five years would work. This should be based upon: 1 - Total number of Members 2 - Number of 'active' members (those that exercise their vote) 3 - Number of (unique) members that attend AIS 4 - Number of (unique) members that attend the year end meeting. The number of Members at (4) is probably the smallest. Right now - 30 for the AIS meeting period (and AGM) seems fine. 20 might be a better number with respect to the second meeting, if it hosts an SGM where quorum is needed. I simply don't know the real numbers. Fixed numbers are so much easier to deal with rather than percentages. On 28/09/2016 09:55, Dewole Ajao wrote: > Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage > (of something or the other)? > > Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were > to double in a year or two. > > Dewole. > > > On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alan, >>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, >>>>> but I think 10% is too large. >>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in >>>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something >>>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a >>>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. >>> Sure, I can get those numbers. >> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The >> number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who >> attended the meetings. >> >> 2013 2014 2015 2016 >> E-Votes 58 59 49 183 >> On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 >> TOTAL 103 125 126 245 >> >> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 >> resource members in the future. >> >> Alan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From ondouglas at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 09:19:04 2016 From: ondouglas at gmail.com (Douglas Onyango) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:19:04 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <2c9001d21962$a9f23d40$fdd6b7c0$@enetworks.co.za> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <2c9001d21962$a9f23d40$fdd6b7c0$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: Hi Saul, On 28 Sep 2016 11:33, "Saul Stein" wrote: > A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a > quorum can include online participants and then I would prefer we leave this out so that we have discretion to use onsite members, and revert to remote participants only if we can't make quorum from members onsite. This way we can reduce the burden of online verification to only those ocassions where we don't have enough people onsite to meet the quorum requirement. >how to carer for the > voting... > As the stats show, a large number of people voted, but might night have > been present and a number of onsite votes were probably proxies (although > that would count towards a quorum) Voting is already sufficiently catered for to include onsite and online so I dont feel any further intervention is warranted. I also think we should try not to tie these two things together as that might upset the current balance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at tinitop.com] > Sent: 28 September 2016 09:56 AM > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage > (of something or the other)? > > Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were to > double in a year or two. > > Dewole. > > > On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Alan, > >>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but > I think 10% is too large. > >>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in > >>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something > >>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a > >>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. > >> Sure, I can get those numbers. > > Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The > number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who > attended the meetings. > > > > 2013 2014 2015 2016 > > E-Votes 58 59 49 183 > > On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 > > TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > > > > Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 > resource members in the future. > > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Sep 28 09:23:45 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 09:23:45 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <2c9001d21962$a9f23d40$fdd6b7c0$@enetworks.co.za> Message-ID: <14B3550F-D339-4C18-9FDE-0012315D36F4@liquidtelecom.com> I think we also need to differentiate between quorum for vote vs quorum for membership. (Even if not normally ? in the context of this discussion) Proxies count btw ? the rules on proxies are very clear ? a person carrying a proxy represents the member who gave the proxy in every sense of the word. Quorum for voting MUST include online voting in my view ? every member that votes has still exercised their voice. Andrew From: Douglas Onyango Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Date: Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 12:19 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Hi Saul, On 28 Sep 2016 11:33, "Saul Stein" > wrote: > A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a > quorum can include online participants and then I would prefer we leave this out so that we have discretion to use onsite members, and revert to remote participants only if we can't make quorum from members onsite. This way we can reduce the burden of online verification to only those ocassions where we don't have enough people onsite to meet the quorum requirement. >how to carer for the > voting... > As the stats show, a large number of people voted, but might night have > been present and a number of onsite votes were probably proxies (although > that would count towards a quorum) Voting is already sufficiently catered for to include onsite and online so I dont feel any further intervention is warranted. I also think we should try not to tie these two things together as that might upset the current balance. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at tinitop.com] > Sent: 28 September 2016 09:56 AM > To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage > (of something or the other)? > > Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were to > double in a year or two. > > Dewole. > > > On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett > > wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Alan, > >>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but > I think 10% is too large. > >>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in > >>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something > >>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a > >>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. > >> Sure, I can get those numbers. > > Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The > number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who > attended the meetings. > > > > 2013 2014 2015 2016 > > E-Votes 58 59 49 183 > > On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 > > TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > > > > Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 > resource members in the future. > > > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 10:47:06 2016 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (abel ELITCHA) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:47:06 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification In-Reply-To: References: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Chair, "do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i believe has happened in the recent past.?" I think this question from Noah remains unanswered. Am I right? 2016-09-16 14:53 GMT+00:00 Noah : > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Sunday Folayan > wrote: > >> >> >> 4. Membership of CoE >> The Bylaws section 16 gives the Board the power to consider former >> Chairpersons of AFRINIC for appointment to the Council of Elders. The Board >> has not formally discussed appointing the former Chairman in question to >> the CoE, but we will add a discussion of this issue to the agenda of the >> next Board meeting. >> >> > Hi Sunday, > > I am not sure if you received my previous email but I will ask again, do > we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i > believe has happened in the recent past.? > > Thanks and Regards? >> >> Sunday Folayan > > > Noah > > _______________________________________________ > 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 badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Wed Sep 28 13:20:56 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 14:20:56 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to start putting our minds round how to find a solution. Regards On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" wrote: >Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a percentage >(of something or the other)? > >Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership were >to double in a year or two. > >Dewole. > > >On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Alan, >>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too small, but I think 10% is too large. >>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member attendance in >>>> the past 5 years. We can normalize this data and can use something >>>> like the lowest or average number of members present to prescribe a >>>> pragmatic number for our quorum requirement. >>> Sure, I can get those numbers. >> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of members who attended the meetings. >> >> 2013 2014 2015 2016 >> E-Votes 58 59 49 183 >> On-Site Votes 45 66 77 62 >> TOTAL 103 125 126 245 >> >> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of 30 resource members in the future. >> >> Alan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 mje at posix.co.za Wed Sep 28 17:08:20 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 19:08:20 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to > achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another > question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. > > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member > views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where > through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow them, my issue is with them, no one else. Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for another year. If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to them. I really don't see the problem. > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to > start putting our minds round how to find a solution. > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" wrote: > >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a >> percentage (of something or the other)? >> >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership >> were to double in a year or two. >> >> Dewole. >> >> >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alan, >>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too >>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. >>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member >>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data >>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of >>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our >>>>> quorum requirement. >>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of >>> members who attended the meetings. >>> >>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 >>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 >>> >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of >>> 30 resource members in the future. >>> >>> Alan _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- 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: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Sep 28 17:38:57 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 17:38:57 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> Message-ID: +1 Mark, I would have thought this was pretty plain ? it?s a global practice in business and I?d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things hadn?t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I?ve ever read. It?s the same way with shareholder meetings ? a shareholder may give a proxy to someone. A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who gave it to them. Andrew On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" wrote: On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to > achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another > question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. > > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member > views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where > through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow them, my issue is with them, no one else. Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for another year. If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to them. I really don't see the problem. > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to > start putting our minds round how to find a solution. > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" wrote: > >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a >> percentage (of something or the other)? >> >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership >> were to double in a year or two. >> >> Dewole. >> >> >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Alan, >>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too >>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. >>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member >>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data >>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of >>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our >>>>> quorum requirement. >>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of >>> members who attended the meetings. >>> >>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 >>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 >>> >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of >>> 30 resource members in the future. >>> >>> Alan _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > -- 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 From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Sep 28 18:16:17 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:16:17 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> Message-ID: +1 On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston wrote: > +1 Mark, > > I would have thought this was pretty plain ? it?s a global practice in business and I?d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things hadn?t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I?ve ever read. > > It?s the same way with shareholder meetings ? a shareholder may give a proxy to someone. > > A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who gave it to them. > > Andrew > > > > On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > > On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to > > achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another > > question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. > > > > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member > > views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where > > through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who > > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. > > If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that > person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be > 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow > them, my issue is with them, no one else. > > Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on > certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for > another year. > > If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to > them. I really don't see the problem. > > > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to > > start putting our minds round how to find a solution. > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" wrote: > > > >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a > >> percentage (of something or the other)? > >> > >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership > >> were to double in a year or two. > >> > >> Dewole. > >> > >> > >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: > >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Alan, > >>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too > >>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. > >>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member > >>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data > >>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of > >>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our > >>>>> quorum requirement. > >>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. > >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. > >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of > >>> members who attended the meetings. > >>> > >>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 > >>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > >>> > >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of > >>> 30 resource members in the future. > >>> > >>> Alan _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > -- > 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 Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Sep 29 05:09:38 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 05:09:38 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 in Zimbabwe Message-ID: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From patrickouobou at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 07:18:39 2016 From: patrickouobou at gmail.com (PATRICK KOUOBOU) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:18:39 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Well done and good initiative. Like barrack say where is next? 2016-09-29 7:50 GMT+01:00 Musa Stephen Honlue : > Well done. > > On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno" wrote: > >> Well done Andrew and Liquid, >> >> Way to go, where next?:-) >> >> >> Regards >> >> On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > afnog mailing list > https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > -- *Patrick KOUOBOU* *IT Manager * *Ingenieur MIAGE* Senior System and Network Administrator *CCNA, LPIC-2, MCITP, MTCNA, MTCWE* *www.cisformation.com * *(+237) 676760710* *(+237) 694339330* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Thu Sep 29 07:20:10 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 07:20:10 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za>, Message-ID: <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. Regards Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Sep 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > +1 Mark, > > I would have thought this was pretty plain ? it?s a global practice in business and I?d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things hadn?t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I?ve ever read. > > It?s the same way with shareholder meetings ? a shareholder may give a proxy to someone. > > A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who gave it to them. > > Andrew > > > > On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > >> On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: >> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to >> achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another >> question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. >> >> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member >> views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where >> through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who >> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. > > If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that > person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be > 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow > them, my issue is with them, no one else. > > Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on > certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for > another year. > > If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to > them. I really don't see the problem. > >> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to >> start putting our minds round how to find a solution. >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" wrote: >>> >>> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a >>> percentage (of something or the other)? >>> >>> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership >>> were to double in a year or two. >>> >>> Dewole. >>> >>> >>> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Alan, >>>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too >>>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. >>>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member >>>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data >>>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of >>>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our >>>>>> quorum requirement. >>>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. >>>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. >>>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of >>>> members who attended the meetings. >>>> >>>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 >>>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 >>>> >>>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of >>>> 30 resource members in the future. >>>> >>>> Alan _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > -- > 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 paulm at faircape.co.za Thu Sep 29 07:24:29 2016 From: paulm at faircape.co.za (Paul McMaster) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:24:29 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: +1 well done. It is nice to see the IPv6 traffic generally staying in our region. On 29 September 2016 at 07:09, 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- Paul McMaster IT Manager Direct: (021) 815 5792 | Switchboard: (021) 815 5700 paulm at faircape.co.za *Please, in the interests of security, be advised that, Faircape will never send you an e-mail advising you of a change of our banking details.Such emails could be an attempt to defraud you by asking you to make payment to a fraudulent bank account. Do not act on such an email, please contact the writer immediately.* Committed to a superior customer experience MANAGEMENT SERVICES | SURVEILLANCE SERVICES | UTILITY MANAGEMENT & ENERGY SOLUTIONS | SALES & LEASING | COMMUNICATIONS | FAIRCARE TRUST -- The integrity of e-mails sent across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should scan any attached files for viruses as well as verify that the email address of the sender is legitimate. All liability arising as a result of the use of this medium to transmit information by or to the Faircape Group of companies is excluded to the extent permitted by law. Faircape Group of Companies assumes no responsibility or liability which may arise from any attempt to gain unauthorised access to this account through hacking or otherwise. The information contained in this email is confidential and may contain proprietary and/or personal information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any processing of the email or the information contained therein (including disclosure, copying, distribution, storage) or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is prohibited and may be unlawful. No liability or responsibility is accepted if information or data is, for whatever reason corrupted or does not reach its intended recipient. No warranty is given that this email is free of viruses. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 07:42:53 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 01:42:53 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Badru Ntege wrote: > I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. > > Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. > > That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. > > We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. > > The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. Nothing to discuss. A proxy attends a general meeting in place of the member and while in attendance has full right and power as if it was the member present. In fact this limitation of number of member representations a proxy can have is plain silly. Every member should have a right to appoint a proxy of their choice. If 1000 members end up appointing the same individual to proxy so be it. -- From akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng Thu Sep 29 07:55:27 2016 From: akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng (Timothy Ola Akinfenwa) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:55:27 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: +1 Andrew and the team who made it happen! Sent from my OnePlus2 mobile device On 29 Sep 2016 8:25 a.m., "Paul McMaster" wrote: > +1 well done. It is nice to see the IPv6 traffic generally staying in our > region. > > On 29 September 2016 at 07:09, Andrew Alston 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> > > > -- > > Paul McMaster > IT Manager > Direct: (021) 815 5792 | Switchboard: (021) 815 5700 > paulm at faircape.co.za > > > *Please, in the interests of security, be advised that, Faircape will > never send you an e-mail advising you of a change of our banking > details.Such emails could be an attempt to defraud you by asking you to > make payment to a fraudulent bank account. Do not act on such an email, > please contact the writer immediately.* > > Committed to a superior customer experience > MANAGEMENT SERVICES | SURVEILLANCE SERVICES | UTILITY MANAGEMENT & ENERGY > SOLUTIONS | SALES & LEASING | COMMUNICATIONS | FAIRCARE TRUST > > > > The integrity of e-mails sent across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and > messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. The recipient should > scan any attached files for viruses as well as verify that the email > address of the sender is legitimate. All liability arising as a result of > the use of this medium to transmit information by or to the Faircape Group > of companies is excluded to the extent permitted by law. Faircape Group of > Companies assumes no responsibility or liability which may arise from any > attempt to gain unauthorised access to this account through hacking or > otherwise. > > > The information contained in this email is confidential and may contain > proprietary and/or personal information. It is meant solely for the > intended recipient. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If > you are not the intended recipient, any processing of the email or the > information contained therein (including disclosure, copying, distribution, > storage) or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this, is prohibited > and may be unlawful. No liability or responsibility is accepted if > information or data is, for whatever reason corrupted or does not reach its > intended recipient. No warranty is given that this email is free of > viruses. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 alfred.agode at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 09:34:17 2016 From: alfred.agode at gmail.com (Alfred Kodjo D. AGODE) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:34:17 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <1041A270-09D2-4802-9BEB-35A82B99869B@gmail.com> Well done. Sent from my iPhone > Le 29 sept. 2016 ? 07:18, PATRICK KOUOBOU a ?crit : > > Well done and good initiative. Like barrack say where is next? > > 2016-09-29 7:50 GMT+01:00 Musa Stephen Honlue : >> Well done. >> >> >>> On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno" wrote: >>> Well done Andrew and Liquid, >>> >>> Way to go, where next?:-) >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> afnog mailing list >> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog > > > > -- > > Patrick KOUOBOU > IT Manager > Ingenieur MIAGE > Senior System and Network Administrator > CCNA, LPIC-2, MCITP, MTCNA, MTCWE > www.cisformation.com > (+237) 676760710 > (+237) 694339330 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jbmillogo at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 10:34:26 2016 From: jbmillogo at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:34:26 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment In-Reply-To: <66C1A6D6-B2C3-4D6A-89F8-B8F54920DE05@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <7BE13F94-8FC9-4BB0-AE10-A5F7DF7802EB@afrinic.net> <74B5D48A-EBAB-4B5B-8BDF-559B05D71312@afrinic.net> <4B6A76E7-F06E-4EDD-B97F-9BB97430DD78@delong.com> <4081919C-147C-4927-8EFC-960D2750F8B6@nftconsult.com> <2928E103-50A3-40E8-BDC6-F4C850971F4A@delong.com> <2B485BFB-AFFD-4A89-8849-0E681E35B121@nftconsult.com> <5BCFD336-D67F-4EFF-B761-43D972D3A812@wacren.net> <66C1A6D6-B2C3-4D6A-89F8-B8F54920DE05@afrinic.net> Message-ID: 2016-09-28 6:51 GMT+00:00 Alan Barrett : > > > On 28 Sep 2016, at 00:08, Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO > wrote: > > > > > I sent the message within the week, as promised. Here?s a link to my > message: 2016-September/000638.html>. > > Alan Barrett > > > > Dear CEO Sorry, i missed that . Thank you. -- 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 Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Sep 29 13:03:10 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:03:10 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com>, Message-ID: +1 Such restrictions do not impact of the proxy holder they impact on the member and the members right to choose who they trust and who they wish to invest with the power to speak for and vote for them. What right do we have to dictate such to the members? Why should a member not be free to choose who the trust, when they trust them, and what power they choose to entrust to whoever they choose. Or are we saying we don't have enough faith in our members to make their own choices and we need to act as nannies? I call that an insult to the intelligence of our members. Andrew Get Outlook for iOS _____________________________ From: Jackson Muthili > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44 Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Badru Ntege > wrote: > I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. > > Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. > > That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. > > We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. > > The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. Nothing to discuss. A proxy attends a general meeting in place of the member and while in attendance has full right and power as if it was the member present. In fact this limitation of number of member representations a proxy can have is plain silly. Every member should have a right to appoint a proxy of their choice. If 1000 members end up appointing the same individual to proxy so be it. -- _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 29 13:16:35 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:16:35 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > > I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. > > Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. > > That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. > > We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. > > The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of proxies per person. I don?t think that limit applies to anything else. I agree that we should discuss it. Let?s hear whether people think there should be limits, and if so, what the limits should be. Alan Barrett From mje at posix.co.za Thu Sep 29 13:28:44 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:28:44 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: Badru, I know you are involved in a (pretty successful) company. I presume there is a Board and shareholders? What limits does your organisation have on shareholders and proxies? Does your organisation impose any limits? I'm actually not aware of any company apart from AFRINIC that imposes any limitations on shareholders regarding proxies. i.e. - It is AFRINIC that is doing something unusual by having limitations. ps. I was the cause of the limitations on proxies per candidate being introduced within AFRINIC - a consequence of the last Cairo meeting. I arrived with about 20 proxies. On 29/09/2016 09:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. > > Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. > > That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. > > We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. > > The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. > > Regards > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 28 Sep 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> +1 Mark, >> >> I would have thought this was pretty plain ? it?s a global practice in business and I?d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things hadn?t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I?ve ever read. >> >> It?s the same way with shareholder meetings ? a shareholder may give a proxy to someone. >> >> A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who gave it to them. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: >>> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to >>> achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another >>> question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. >>> >>> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member >>> views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where >>> through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who >>> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. >> >> If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that >> person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be >> 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow >> them, my issue is with them, no one else. >> >> Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on >> certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for >> another year. >> >> If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to >> them. I really don't see the problem. >> >>> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to >>> start putting our minds round how to find a solution. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" wrote: >>>> >>>> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a >>>> percentage (of something or the other)? >>>> >>>> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership >>>> were to double in a year or two. >>>> >>>> Dewole. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: >>>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Alan, >>>>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too >>>>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. >>>>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member >>>>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data >>>>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of >>>>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our >>>>>>> quorum requirement. >>>>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. >>>>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. >>>>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of >>>>> members who attended the meetings. >>>>> >>>>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 >>>>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 >>>>> >>>>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of >>>>> 30 resource members in the future. >>>>> >>>>> Alan _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> >> -- >> 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: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Sep 29 13:50:42 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:50:42 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: In this particular case they are Huawei ONT?s. So not exactly a regular CPE (ONT?s are typically vendor locked to the deployed OLTs) Thanks Andrew On 29/09/2016, 16:29, "Loganaden Velvindron" wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston 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 ? From noah at neo.co.tz Thu Sep 29 14:01:47 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:01:47 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification In-Reply-To: References: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 28 Sep 2016 13:50, "abel ELITCHA" wrote: > > Hi Chair, > > "do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i believe has happened in the recent past.?" > I think this question from Noah remains unanswered. Am I right? > Whatever the excuse will be this time, but the this level of disregard is uncalled for. If i may, does the AFRINIC board require a spokes person so that we membera can suggest electing one who can respond to members queries.? Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Thu Sep 29 14:31:53 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:31:53 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> Message-ID: -1 There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the principle in question. These votes are meant to be a representation of public interest not shareholder or group interest so we should care more about ethics and the moral responsibility of having involved voters. As we are starting to record more online votes than onsite, I don't see why we can't consider limiting to online voting if not physically present. We can use opportunity to improve on member engagement. We may need to improve integrity and ease of use of the voting system in the process but small price to pay for a more representative and involved community. -Omo On 28 September 2016 at 20:16, Jackson Muthili wrote: > +1 > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > > +1 Mark, > > > > I would have thought this was pretty plain ? it?s a global practice in > business and I?d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other > such things hadn?t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company > act I?ve ever read. > > > > It?s the same way with shareholder meetings ? a shareholder may give a > proxy to someone. > > > > A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the > person who gave it to them. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > > > On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > > > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way > to > > > achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another > > > question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. > > > > > > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged > member > > > views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where > > > through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members > who > > > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. > > > > If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that > > person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not > be > > 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow > > them, my issue is with them, no one else. > > > > Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on > > certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for > > another year. > > > > If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it > to > > them. I really don't see the problem. > > > > > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need > to > > > start putting our minds round how to find a solution. > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" wrote: > > > > > >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a > > >> percentage (of something or the other)? > > >> > > >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership > > >> were to double in a year or two. > > >> > > >> Dewole. > > >> > > >> > > >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Hi Alan, > > >>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too > > >>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. > > >>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member > > >>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data > > >>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of > > >>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our > > >>>>> quorum requirement. > > >>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. > > >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. > > >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of > > >>> members who attended the meetings. > > >>> > > >>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 > 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 > > >>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > > >>> > > >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of > > >>> 30 resource members in the future. > > >>> > > >>> Alan _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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 > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Sep 29 14:50:58 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 14:50:58 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> , Message-ID: Because proxies are enshrined in the companies act for one thing. Secondly, what is your definition of abuse? Someone was trusted by a lot of people and used them to vote a way that you didn't like? That's not abuse - that's members who had faith in someone and decided to vote in a particular way. Calling that abuse is laughable in the extreme - and it shows lack of willingness to accept the will of the majority vote. Attempting to limit and change the rules to ensure that things go a particular way is no better than incumbent politicians attempting to change constitutions to hold onto power, or pushing for voting reforms to disenfranchise a particular group of people because you don't like the way they may vote. Let's respect the democratic process here Andrew Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________ From: Omo Oaiya Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:31:53 PM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum -1 There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the principle in question. These votes are meant to be a representation of public interest not shareholder or group interest so we should care more about ethics and the moral responsibility of having involved voters. As we are starting to record more online votes than onsite, I don't see why we can't consider limiting to online voting if not physically present. We can use opportunity to improve on member engagement. We may need to improve integrity and ease of use of the voting system in the process but small price to pay for a more representative and involved community. -Omo On 28 September 2016 at 20:16, Jackson Muthili > wrote: +1 On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > +1 Mark, > > I would have thought this was pretty plain ? it?s a global practice in business and I?d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things hadn?t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I?ve ever read. > > It?s the same way with shareholder meetings ? a shareholder may give a proxy to someone. > > A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who gave it to them. > > Andrew > > > > On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" > wrote: > > > > On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to > > achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another > > question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. > > > > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member > > views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where > > through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who > > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. > > If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that > person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be > 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow > them, my issue is with them, no one else. > > Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on > certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for > another year. > > If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to > them. I really don't see the problem. > > > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to > > start putting our minds round how to find a solution. > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" > wrote: > > > >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a > >> percentage (of something or the other)? > >> > >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership > >> were to double in a year or two. > >> > >> Dewole. > >> > >> > >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: > >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Alan, > >>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too > >>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. > >>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member > >>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data > >>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of > >>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our > >>>>> quorum requirement. > >>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. > >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. > >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of > >>> members who attended the meetings. > >>> > >>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 > >>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > >>> > >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of > >>> 30 resource members in the future. > >>> > >>> Alan _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > -- > 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 -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 15:15:12 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:15:12 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > -1 > > There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the > principle in question. Do you have any evidence of this? When did the abuse happen? Who abused the process? How was it abused? Be elaborate here with factual data please. Any system can have a loophole but the spirit is to fix them in good faith and not infringe members rights. A member should have the right to appoint a proxy of its choice. It does not matter who. This MUST be changed in by-laws and corrected. -- From aalain at trstech.net Thu Sep 29 16:03:39 2016 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:03:39 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> Hello, > On Sep 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege wrote: >> >> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. >> >> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. >> >> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. >> >> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. >> >> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. > > For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of proxies per person. I don?t think that limit applies to anything else. Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies to all elections. ======================= 12.12 Proxies (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election ======================== Hope this helps ?Alain > > I agree that we should discuss it. Let?s hear whether people think there should be limits, and if so, what the limits should be. > > 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 Thu Sep 29 16:22:10 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:22:10 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> Message-ID: <1195867D-6E4B-4E29-99A4-38AC6752CFF3@afrinic.net> > On 29 Sep 2016, at 20:03, ALAIN AINA wrote: >> For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of proxies per person. I don?t think that limit applies to anything else. > > Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies to all elections. > > ======================= > 12.12 Proxies > > (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the > Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election > ======================== Thank you for the reference. Alan Barrett From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Sep 29 16:29:58 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:29:58 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> Message-ID: <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> Correct ? I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for example. It is specifically limited to ELECTION voting ? any election. Thanks Andrew On 29/09/2016, 19:03, "ALAIN AINA" wrote: Hello, > On Sep 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege wrote: >> >> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. >> >> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. >> >> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. >> >> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. >> >> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. > > For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of proxies per person. I don?t think that limit applies to anything else. Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies to all elections. ======================= 12.12 Proxies (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election ======================== Hope this helps ?Alain > > I agree that we should discuss it. Let?s hear whether people think there should be limits, and if so, what the limits should be. > > 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 mgnalou at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 17:06:01 2016 From: mgnalou at gmail.com (Mazama Gnalou) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:06:01 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: DId you use IPV6 in fixe and mobile network? GNALOU Mazama-esso skype: mgnalou 00228 90 39 82 83 00228 22 34 38 82 2016-09-29 13:50 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston : > In this particular case they are Huawei ONT?s. So not exactly a regular > CPE (ONT?s are typically vendor locked to the deployed OLTs) > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > On 29/09/2016, 16:29, "Loganaden Velvindron" wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston > 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 ? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 29 17:15:09 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:15:09 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: At the moment it?s on the FTTH network. Work is going on to do the FTTH network in Zambia next, and we?re also working on doing this on the new LTE network in Zambia. Once we get those two right, we will look further at the mobile stuff. There are other challenges there so we?re taking it one step at a time and ensuring we get it right the first time ? our one imperative in all of these rollouts is ? do NOT impact customer service. We will get there though ? Andrew From: Mazama Gnalou Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Date: Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:06 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Cc: Loganaden Velvindron , afnog Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe DId you use IPV6 in fixe and mobile network? GNALOU Mazama-esso skype: mgnalou 00228 90 39 82 83 00228 22 34 38 82 2016-09-29 13:50 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston >: In this particular case they are Huawei ONT?s. So not exactly a regular CPE (ONT?s are typically vendor locked to the deployed OLTs) Thanks Andrew On 29/09/2016, 16:29, "Loganaden Velvindron" > wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston > 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 ? _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 29 17:18:12 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:18:12 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> , , Message-ID: <77CB9E4B-562C-4287-BC9A-7C1C5471A5F2@nftconsult.com> We had a similar discussion on another list somewhere and someone related the mass proxie thing to ballot stuffing which we commonly see in our elections in the region Even trust has guidelines @ mark thanks for alluding to the elephant in the room. If we want an outcome that inspires trust which does not exist right now let's consider limitations on proxies. Sent from my iPhone On 29 Sep 2016, at 3:52 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: Because proxies are enshrined in the companies act for one thing. Secondly, what is your definition of abuse? Someone was trusted by a lot of people and used them to vote a way that you didn't like? That's not abuse - that's members who had faith in someone and decided to vote in a particular way. Calling that abuse is laughable in the extreme - and it shows lack of willingness to accept the will of the majority vote. Attempting to limit and change the rules to ensure that things go a particular way is no better than incumbent politicians attempting to change constitutions to hold onto power, or pushing for voting reforms to disenfranchise a particular group of people because you don't like the way they may vote. Let's respect the democratic process here Andrew Get Outlook for iOS ________________________________ From: Omo Oaiya > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:31:53 PM To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum -1 There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the principle in question. These votes are meant to be a representation of public interest not shareholder or group interest so we should care more about ethics and the moral responsibility of having involved voters. As we are starting to record more online votes than onsite, I don't see why we can't consider limiting to online voting if not physically present. We can use opportunity to improve on member engagement. We may need to improve integrity and ease of use of the voting system in the process but small price to pay for a more representative and involved community. -Omo On 28 September 2016 at 20:16, Jackson Muthili > wrote: +1 On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > +1 Mark, > > I would have thought this was pretty plain ? it?s a global practice in business and I?d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things hadn?t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I?ve ever read. > > It?s the same way with shareholder meetings ? a shareholder may give a proxy to someone. > > A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who gave it to them. > > Andrew > > > > On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" > wrote: > > > > On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote: > > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to > > achieve a representative outcome. However this opens another > > question when it comes to ?representative? and actual votes. > > > > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member > > views. The current system is open to some kind of abuse where > > through the use of proxies, votes are cast on behalf of members who > > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about. > > If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that > person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be > 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow > them, my issue is with them, no one else. > > Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on > certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for > another year. > > If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to > them. I really don't see the problem. > > > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to > > start putting our minds round how to find a solution. > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" > wrote: > > > >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a > >> percentage (of something or the other)? > >> > >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership > >> were to double in a year or two. > >> > >> Dewole. > >> > >> > >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote: > >>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett > >>>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango > >>>>> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Alan, > >>>>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too > >>>>>> small, but I think 10% is too large. > >>>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member > >>>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data > >>>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of > >>>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our > >>>>> quorum requirement. > >>>> Sure, I can get those numbers. > >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections. > >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of > >>> members who attended the meetings. > >>> > >>> 2013 2014 2015 2016 E-Votes 58 59 49 183 On-Site Votes 45 > >>> 66 77 62 TOTAL 103 125 126 245 > >>> > >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of > >>> 30 resource members in the future. > >>> > >>> Alan _______________________________________________ > >>> 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 > > > > -- > 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 -- Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 808 888 1571 , +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Sep 29 17:22:33 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:22:33 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net>, <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> Sent from my iPhone > On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Correct ? I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for example. > If we thought it important enough to enshrine in the bye laws we should extend it to all voting processes. > It is specifically limited to ELECTION voting ? any election. > > Thanks > > Andrew > > > > On 29/09/2016, 19:03, "ALAIN AINA" wrote: > > Hello, >> On Sep 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> >>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege wrote: >>> >>> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate. >>> >>> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. >>> >>> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election. >>> >>> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. >>> >>> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. >> >> For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of proxies per person. I don?t think that limit applies to anything else. > > > Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies to all elections. > > ======================= > 12.12 Proxies > > (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the > Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election > ======================== > > > Hope this helps > > ?Alain > >> >> I agree that we should discuss it. Let?s hear whether people think there should be limits, and if so, what the limits should be. >> >> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Thu Sep 29 17:38:46 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:38:46 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Badru Ntege wrote: >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> Correct ? I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for example. My main point was that the proxy limit does not apply to determining quorum or to voting on resolutions; only to voting in elections. However, I was also under the mistaken impression that the limit came from the election guidelines, whereas it actually comes from the bylaws. > If we thought it important enough to enshrine in the bye laws we should extend it to all voting processes. If we have proxy limits at all, then I think that they should be applied equally to all relevant situations (determining quorum, and any vote my Members). However, I am not convinced that there should be any limit. Alan Barrett From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Sep 29 18:09:26 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:09:26 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this. The fifth schedule of the companies act ? clause 6, makes specific references to proxies ? and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as a proxy. It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states that the entirety of clause 6 applies ?not withstanding any provision in any constitution adopted by the company.? The only exception to this is clause 6 (d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the actual proxy. My reading of this ? and again, I would like to hear informed legal opinion, is that limitations on the proxy instruments that could impact on anyone appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of line with the companies act ? and hence the limitation in our bylaws is illegal and cannot be enforced ? since it is overridden by the act ? which reigns supreme. Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above? Thanks Andrew On 29/09/2016, 20:38, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Badru Ntege wrote: >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> Correct ? I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for example. My main point was that the proxy limit does not apply to determining quorum or to voting on resolutions; only to voting in elections. However, I was also under the mistaken impression that the limit came from the election guidelines, whereas it actually comes from the bylaws. > If we thought it important enough to enshrine in the bye laws we should extend it to all voting processes. If we have proxy limits at all, then I think that they should be applied equally to all relevant situations (determining quorum, and any vote my Members). However, I am not convinced that there should be any limit. 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 Thu Sep 29 18:29:50 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 22:29:50 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:09, Andrew Alston wrote: > > I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this. > > The fifth schedule of the companies act ? clause 6, makes specific references to proxies ? and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as a proxy. What the Mauritius Companies Act refers to as Members corresponds to what the AFRINIC Bylaws refer to as Registered Members. > It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states that the entirety of clause 6 applies ?not withstanding any provision in any constitution adopted by the company.? The only exception to this is clause 6 (d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the actual proxy. > > My reading of this ? and again, I would like to hear informed legal opinion, is that limitations on the proxy instruments that could impact on anyone appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of line with the companies act ? and hence the limitation in our bylaws is illegal and cannot be enforced ? since it is overridden by the act ? which reigns supreme. > > Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above? I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the Companies Act may override the Bylaws on matters relating to Directors and Registered Members, but not on matters relating to Resource Members (which is an AFRINIC construct that is not reflected in the Companies Act). Alan Barrett From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 18:26:09 2016 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:26:09 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this. > > The fifth schedule of the companies act ? clause 6, makes specific references to proxies ? and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as a proxy. > > It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states that the entirety of clause 6 applies ?not withstanding any provision in any constitution adopted by the company.? The only exception to this is clause 6 (d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the actual proxy. > > My reading of this ? and again, I would like to hear informed legal opinion, is that limitations on the proxy instruments that could impact on anyone appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of line with the companies act ? and hence the limitation in our bylaws is illegal and cannot be enforced ? since it is overridden by the act ? which reigns supreme. > > Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above? It is very clear and lawyers will 100% agree. Please propose a change to this flimsy restriction in the by-laws. And yes of course it can be legally challenged as written so better to get rid of it now. -- From bennie.joubert at jsdaav.com Thu Sep 29 18:43:29 2016 From: bennie.joubert at jsdaav.com (Bennie Joubert) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:43:29 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that currently do exist -1 For adding any new restrictions I paid my membership fees like the rest and feel my vote counts if it is online or via proxy. Just my 2 cents. Kind regards. -- Bennie Joubert Tel: +27.870600000 Fax: +27.862167377 Cell: +27.769485741 Email: bennie.joubert at jsdaav.com [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Sep 29 18:48:46 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 18:48:46 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> Hi Alan, Writing wearing my member hat?. The problem here and this is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has always been communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been stated both on the floor at AGMM?s and in emails. I would need to find specific examples, but I believe such has even been stated by council. Now ? this may or may not hold legal ground ? I am no lawyer and don?t claim to be ? but perhaps this opens a wider question ? do we consider members to have the same rights as shareholders under the act. If so, we should probably enshrine this in the bylaws ? if not ? we should probably have something that clearly delineates the differences. Again ? if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as shareholders ? the proxy limitation becomes invalid under that interpretation. If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws ? it creates another problem ? there are various parts of the companies that are very explicit in the rights that are assigned *only* to shareholders ? and at that point we have to be consistent in our approach. We can?t pick and choose here. Just my thoughts? Andrew On 29/09/2016, 21:29, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:09, Andrew Alston wrote: > > I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this. > > The fifth schedule of the companies act ? clause 6, makes specific references to proxies ? and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as a proxy. What the Mauritius Companies Act refers to as Members corresponds to what the AFRINIC Bylaws refer to as Registered Members. > It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states that the entirety of clause 6 applies ?not withstanding any provision in any constitution adopted by the company.? The only exception to this is clause 6 (d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the actual proxy. > > My reading of this ? and again, I would like to hear informed legal opinion, is that limitations on the proxy instruments that could impact on anyone appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of line with the companies act ? and hence the limitation in our bylaws is illegal and cannot be enforced ? since it is overridden by the act ? which reigns supreme. > > Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above? I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the Companies Act may override the Bylaws on matters relating to Directors and Registered Members, but not on matters relating to Resource Members (which is an AFRINIC construct that is not reflected in the Companies Act). 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 Thu Sep 29 19:03:36 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:03:36 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> > On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:48, Andrew Alston wrote: > The problem here and this is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has always been communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been stated both on the floor at AGMM?s and in emails. I would need to find specific examples, but I believe such has even been stated by council. I have always tried to be clear on the difference. What the Act calls ?Members? or ?Shareholders? corresponds, in my view, to what AFRINIC calls ?Registered Members?. We do treat Resource Members a lot like shareholders, in many ways that are listed in the Bylaws (mostly in section 7.6), but in cases where the Act gives some rights or responsibilities to shareholders or members, and the Bylaws are silent on the issue, then I believe that only Registered Members are affected by the Act. > Now ? this may or may not hold legal ground ? I am no lawyer and don?t claim to be ? but perhaps this opens a wider question ? do we consider members to have the same rights as shareholders under the act. If so, we should probably enshrine this in the bylaws ? if not ? we should probably have something that clearly delineates the differences. I am also not a lawyer. I worry about unintended consequences of explicitly giving Resource Members all the powers of shareholders, and would want carefully considered legal advice before we do anything like that. > Again ? if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as shareholders ? the proxy limitation becomes invalid under that interpretation. I see some support for removing the proxy limitation. > If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws ? it creates another problem ? there are various parts of the companies that are very explicit in the rights that are assigned *only* to shareholders ? and at that point we have to be consistent in our approach. We can?t pick and choose here. My belief is that we have been consistent: the rights assigned by the Act to shareholders apply only to Registered Members, unless the Bylaws also assign those rights to other categories of members. Alan Barrett From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Thu Sep 29 20:45:48 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:45:48 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com> <8CB1D673-DE32-4150-A6EB-4F2F1D872861@liquidtelecom.com> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 29 Sep 2016 8:04 p.m., "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:48, Andrew Alston wrote: > > The problem here and this is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has always been communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been stated both on the floor at AGMM?s and in emails. I would need to find specific examples, but I believe such has even been stated by council. > > I have always tried to be clear on the difference. What the Act calls ?Members? or ?Shareholders? corresponds, in my view, to what AFRINIC calls ?Registered Members?. > > We do treat Resource Members a lot like shareholders, in many ways that are listed in the Bylaws (mostly in section 7.6), but in cases where the Act gives some rights or responsibilities to shareholders or members, and the Bylaws are silent on the issue, then I believe that only Registered Members are affected by the Act. > > > Now ? this may or may not hold legal ground ? I am no lawyer and don?t claim to be ? but perhaps this opens a wider question ? do we consider members to have the same rights as shareholders under the act. If so, we should probably enshrine this in the bylaws ? if not ? we should probably have something that clearly delineates the differences. > > I am also not a lawyer. I worry about unintended consequences of explicitly giving Resource Members all the powers of shareholders, and would want carefully considered legal advice before we do anything like that. > > > Again ? if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as shareholders ? the proxy limitation becomes invalid under that interpretation. > > I see some support for removing the proxy limitation. > > > If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws ? it creates another problem ? there are various parts of the companies that are very explicit in the rights that are assigned *only* to shareholders ? and at that point we have to be consistent in our approach. We can?t pick and choose here. > > My belief is that we have been consistent: the rights assigned by the Act to shareholders apply only to Registered Members, unless the Bylaws also assign those rights to other categories of members. > I see some confusion here and it seems rooted in our interpretation of the powers that the Mauritius companies act confers on registered members and whether members of the community are shareholders. I am also not a lawyer but it seems to me from my reading that the Act supersedes what the byelaws. If the Act only deals with the directors then I wonder why we are having this discussion. The current limitations on proxies were a consequence of the history I referred to. Good to seek some legal clarification now and deal with this properly. -Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mje at posix.co.za Thu Sep 29 22:26:29 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 00:26:29 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Perhaps look at some history... The reason why we have only a few "Registered Members" is that if we have more than a certain (lowish) number (something like 20?) then the Mauritian Law would view us differently. Adiel did explain it to us (or me), different tax category or some other financial reason. So, if not for Mauritian Law - all "Resource Members" could be "real" Members. Thus the distinction is for simplification and (I believe) to save some money or complications. So simplicity dictated that all Board Members (primary and alternatives at one time) were the "registered" members. Yet again - the reason Proxy restrictions were introduced is because I brought quite a few (for the time) proxies to the AFRINIC Cairo meeting. Restrictions were introduced after that meeting, championed by the CEO. The restrictions on proxies then became even more restrictive a while later. Personally, I believe the restrictions should be totally removed. They are somewhat ineffective and can be worked around. (Don't give me your proxy - just electronically vote in my favour). Another more radical thought is to remove proxies completely for the election process. One has to go through almost the same hoops to generate a proxy as to vote for a person, so just cast a vote. The two downsides of e-voting are; early electronic votes may be "lost" by people withdrawing at the last minute -and- e-voters may only be concerned about voting for one of the two (or three) positions, unlike people physically present at the meeting. The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Obviously - as the Governance Committee election methodology is trying to closely emulate that of the Board, we can expect the same proxy rules for now. My understanding of non-seat voting made at the AGMM for issues like Auditors remuneration or bylaw changes (etc) is that you can (as in every other business I know) hold and exercise an unlimited number of members proxies. On 29/09/2016 21:03, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:48, Andrew Alston >> wrote: The problem here and this >> is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has always been >> communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as >> shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been >> stated both on the floor at AGMM?s and in emails. I would need to >> find specific examples, but I believe such has even been stated by >> council. > > I have always tried to be clear on the difference. What the Act > calls ?Members? or ?Shareholders? corresponds, in my view, to what > AFRINIC calls ?Registered Members?. > > We do treat Resource Members a lot like shareholders, in many ways > that are listed in the Bylaws (mostly in section 7.6), but in cases > where the Act gives some rights or responsibilities to shareholders > or members, and the Bylaws are silent on the issue, then I believe > that only Registered Members are affected by the Act. > >> Now ? this may or may not hold legal ground ? I am no lawyer and >> don?t claim to be ? but perhaps this opens a wider question ? do we >> consider members to have the same rights as shareholders under the >> act. If so, we should probably enshrine this in the bylaws ? if >> not ? we should probably have something that clearly delineates the >> differences. > > I am also not a lawyer. I worry about unintended consequences of > explicitly giving Resource Members all the powers of shareholders, > and would want carefully considered legal advice before we do > anything like that. > >> Again ? if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as >> shareholders ? the proxy limitation becomes invalid under that >> interpretation. > > I see some support for removing the proxy limitation. > >> If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws ? it >> creates another problem ? there are various parts of the companies >> that are very explicit in the rights that are assigned *only* to >> shareholders ? and at that point we have to be consistent in our >> approach. We can?t pick and choose here. > > My belief is that we have been consistent: the rights assigned by the > Act to shareholders apply only to Registered Members, unless the > Bylaws also assign those rights to other categories of members. > > 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: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Sep 30 03:56:48 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:56:48 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote > The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board > elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at > the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by > those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. Alan Barrett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Sep 30 04:56:57 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:56:57 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> Message-ID: same from here. +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that currently do exist -1 For adding any new restrictions Frank On 9/29/2016 9:43 PM, Bennie Joubert wrote: > +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that > currently do exist > > -1 For adding any new restrictions > > > I paid my membership fees like the rest and feel my vote counts if it is > online or via proxy. Just my 2 cents. > > Kind regards. > From jwalu at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 05:56:26 2016 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 05:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <864250451.1996024.1475214986779@mail.yahoo.com> @Mark, Your history may be right, but for purposes of the upcoming Governance Committee elections, it is better to stick with the spirit and letter of the prevailing Board Elections rules (with their limited proxy rules). Its too late in the day to try and tinker with anything at this stage since whatever 'new' step is introduced, it may be interpreted differently by different members. walu. From: Mark Elkins To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Perhaps look at some history... The reason why we have only a few "Registered Members" is that if we have more than a certain (lowish) number (something like 20?) then the Mauritian Law would view us differently. Adiel did explain it to us (or me), different tax category or some other financial reason. So, if not for Mauritian Law - all "Resource Members" could be "real" Members. Thus the distinction is for simplification and (I believe) to save some money or complications. So simplicity dictated that all Board Members (primary and alternatives at one time) were the "registered" members. Yet again - the reason Proxy restrictions were introduced is because I brought quite a few (for the time) proxies to the AFRINIC Cairo meeting. Restrictions were introduced after that meeting, championed by the CEO. The restrictions on proxies then became even more restrictive a while later. Personally, I believe the restrictions should be totally removed. They are somewhat ineffective and can be worked around. (Don't give me your proxy - just electronically vote in my favour). Another more radical thought is to remove proxies completely for the election process. One has to go through almost the same hoops to generate a proxy as to vote for a person, so just cast a vote. The two downsides of e-voting are; early electronic votes may be "lost" by people withdrawing at the last minute -and- e-voters may only be concerned about voting for one of the two (or three) positions, unlike people physically present at the meeting. The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Obviously - as the Governance Committee election methodology is trying to closely emulate that of the Board, we can expect the same proxy rules for now. My understanding of non-seat voting made at the AGMM for issues like Auditors remuneration or bylaw changes (etc) is that you can (as in every other business I know) hold and exercise an unlimited number of members proxies. On 29/09/2016 21:03, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:48, Andrew Alston >> wrote: The problem here and this >> is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has always been >> communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as >> shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been >> stated both on the floor at AGMM?s and in emails.? I would need to >> find specific examples, but I believe such has even been stated by >> council. > > I have always tried to be clear on the difference.? What the Act > calls ?Members? or ?Shareholders? corresponds, in my view, to what > AFRINIC calls ?Registered Members?. > > We do treat Resource Members a lot like shareholders, in many ways > that are listed in the Bylaws (mostly in section 7.6), but in cases > where the Act gives some rights or responsibilities to shareholders > or members, and the Bylaws are silent on the issue, then I believe > that only Registered Members are affected by the Act. > >> Now ? this may or may not hold legal ground ? I am no lawyer and >> don?t claim to be ? but perhaps this opens a wider question ? do we >> consider members to have the same rights as shareholders under the >> act.? If so, we should probably enshrine this in the bylaws ? if >> not ? we should probably have something that clearly delineates the >> differences. > > I am also not a lawyer.? I worry about unintended consequences of > explicitly giving Resource Members all the powers of shareholders, > and would want carefully considered legal advice before we do > anything like that. > >> Again ? if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as >> shareholders ? the proxy limitation becomes invalid under that >> interpretation. > > I see some support for removing the proxy limitation. > >> If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws ? it >> creates another problem ? there are various parts of the companies >> that are very explicit in the rights that are assigned *only* to >> shareholders ? and at that point we have to be consistent in our >> approach.? We can?t pick and choose here. > > My belief is that we have been consistent: the rights assigned by the > Act to shareholders apply only to Registered Members, unless the > Bylaws also assign those rights to other categories of members. > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 jwalu at yahoo.com Fri Sep 30 05:56:26 2016 From: jwalu at yahoo.com (Walubengo J) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 05:56:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <864250451.1996024.1475214986779@mail.yahoo.com> @Mark, Your history may be right, but for purposes of the upcoming Governance Committee elections, it is better to stick with the spirit and letter of the prevailing Board Elections rules (with their limited proxy rules). Its too late in the day to try and tinker with anything at this stage since whatever 'new' step is introduced, it may be interpreted differently by different members. walu. From: Mark Elkins To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Perhaps look at some history... The reason why we have only a few "Registered Members" is that if we have more than a certain (lowish) number (something like 20?) then the Mauritian Law would view us differently. Adiel did explain it to us (or me), different tax category or some other financial reason. So, if not for Mauritian Law - all "Resource Members" could be "real" Members. Thus the distinction is for simplification and (I believe) to save some money or complications. So simplicity dictated that all Board Members (primary and alternatives at one time) were the "registered" members. Yet again - the reason Proxy restrictions were introduced is because I brought quite a few (for the time) proxies to the AFRINIC Cairo meeting. Restrictions were introduced after that meeting, championed by the CEO. The restrictions on proxies then became even more restrictive a while later. Personally, I believe the restrictions should be totally removed. They are somewhat ineffective and can be worked around. (Don't give me your proxy - just electronically vote in my favour). Another more radical thought is to remove proxies completely for the election process. One has to go through almost the same hoops to generate a proxy as to vote for a person, so just cast a vote. The two downsides of e-voting are; early electronic votes may be "lost" by people withdrawing at the last minute -and- e-voters may only be concerned about voting for one of the two (or three) positions, unlike people physically present at the meeting. The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Obviously - as the Governance Committee election methodology is trying to closely emulate that of the Board, we can expect the same proxy rules for now. My understanding of non-seat voting made at the AGMM for issues like Auditors remuneration or bylaw changes (etc) is that you can (as in every other business I know) hold and exercise an unlimited number of members proxies. On 29/09/2016 21:03, Alan Barrett wrote: > >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:48, Andrew Alston >> wrote: The problem here and this >> is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has always been >> communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as >> shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been >> stated both on the floor at AGMM?s and in emails.? I would need to >> find specific examples, but I believe such has even been stated by >> council. > > I have always tried to be clear on the difference.? What the Act > calls ?Members? or ?Shareholders? corresponds, in my view, to what > AFRINIC calls ?Registered Members?. > > We do treat Resource Members a lot like shareholders, in many ways > that are listed in the Bylaws (mostly in section 7.6), but in cases > where the Act gives some rights or responsibilities to shareholders > or members, and the Bylaws are silent on the issue, then I believe > that only Registered Members are affected by the Act. > >> Now ? this may or may not hold legal ground ? I am no lawyer and >> don?t claim to be ? but perhaps this opens a wider question ? do we >> consider members to have the same rights as shareholders under the >> act.? If so, we should probably enshrine this in the bylaws ? if >> not ? we should probably have something that clearly delineates the >> differences. > > I am also not a lawyer.? I worry about unintended consequences of > explicitly giving Resource Members all the powers of shareholders, > and would want carefully considered legal advice before we do > anything like that. > >> Again ? if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as >> shareholders ? the proxy limitation becomes invalid under that >> interpretation. > > I see some support for removing the proxy limitation. > >> If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws ? it >> creates another problem ? there are various parts of the companies >> that are very explicit in the rights that are assigned *only* to >> shareholders ? and at that point we have to be consistent in our >> approach.? We can?t pick and choose here. > > My belief is that we have been consistent: the rights assigned by the > Act to shareholders apply only to Registered Members, unless the > Bylaws also assign those rights to other categories of members. > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 30 06:16:00 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:16:00 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com>, Message-ID: <87768B27-5481-4A4A-A4B3-140365AABEE6@nftconsult.com> Members Having read all the mails bellow it is clear that we need to fix the system by which we make decisions. Whenever a consensus driven entity starts referring to lawyers and legal precedence then you know you have deeper problems. These are signs of cracks in our system. We happen to be a registered legal entity because of government constraints. The same governments we keep on saying should stay out of the Internet. Let's keep AfriNIC a consensus driven entity that we all want. I urge we find consensus and separate the government shackles from the mission of our organisation. Consensus however is driven by the allowable quorum which we then need to find innovative solutions that we might not have thought of before to make sure that we fairly represent not only the active members but also the regional stakeholders those users of the Internet in the future that might not even have access today. So concentrating proxies or not driving for wider inclusion in ideas of how we move on is contrary to our mission. Let's keep the lawyers out at the moment and have an open discussion of views. Regards Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:58 AM, Frank Habicht wrote: > > same from here. > > +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that > currently do exist > > -1 For adding any new restrictions > > > Frank > >> On 9/29/2016 9:43 PM, Bennie Joubert wrote: >> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that >> currently do exist >> >> -1 For adding any new restrictions >> >> >> I paid my membership fees like the rest and feel my vote counts if it is >> online or via proxy. Just my 2 cents. >> >> Kind regards. > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 06:20:16 2016 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:20:16 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification In-Reply-To: References: <57853BB5.3080308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6ed8a2cf-1f71-c166-78e7-4348b3c237a9@gmail.com> Dear Abel, Noah and Members, 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. However, the summary of the outcome of the Board discussion about the subject matter is that there was not enough votes to appoint Mr Ntege to the CoE at this time. Best Regards ... Sunday. On 29/09/2016 15:01, Noah wrote: > > On 28 Sep 2016 13:50, "abel ELITCHA" > wrote: > > > > Hi Chair, > > > > "do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting > which i believe has happened in the recent past.?" > > I think this question from Noah remains unanswered. Am I right? > > > > Whatever the excuse will be this time, but the this level of disregard > is uncalled for. > > If i may, does the AFRINIC board require a spokes person so that we > membera can suggest electing one who can respond to members queries.? > > Noah > -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 noah at neo.co.tz Fri Sep 30 07:18:55 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:18:55 +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 30 Sep 2016 09:20, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: > > Dear Abel, Noah and Members, > How are you Sunday, > The Board met on 10th August 2016 and I tabled the matter as promised. > Yes we noted that from the AFRINIC website. > 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. > But Chair, Is it so hard for you to just reach out to the community and inform us about such developments rather than ignoring our emails. Even if you were waiting for October meetings, an update of your previous meeting would have come in handy for the community. > However, the summary of the outcome of the Board discussion about the subject matter is that there was not enough votes to appoint Mr Ntege to the CoE at this time. > This is all we wanted to know. That the bylaws are respected. That such due process is followed. That such matters should never be disregarded. > Best Regards ... > Best regards too as we wait for the final input fr the boars about the same after your October seating. > Sunday. > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Fri Sep 30 07:20:56 2016 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:20:56 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <028901d21aeb$2f9cd610$8ed68230$@enetworks.co.za> This is awesome! Good to hear about the whois and that it worked as expected! From: Andrew Alston [mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com] Sent: 29 September 2016 07:10 AM To: afnog Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 in Zimbabwe 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ashok at afrinic.net Fri Sep 30 11:27:17 2016 From: ashok at afrinic.net (Ashok Radhakissoon) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:27:17 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Dear Alan, I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by Andrew. Regards Ashok. On 29/09/2016 22:29, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:09, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this. >> >> The fifth schedule of the companies act ? clause 6, makes specific references to proxies ? and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as a proxy. > What the Mauritius Companies Act refers to as Members corresponds to what the AFRINIC Bylaws refer to as Registered Members. > >> It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states that the entirety of clause 6 applies ?not withstanding any provision in any constitution adopted by the company.? The only exception to this is clause 6 (d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the actual proxy. >> >> My reading of this ? and again, I would like to hear informed legal opinion, is that limitations on the proxy instruments that could impact on anyone appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of line with the companies act ? and hence the limitation in our bylaws is illegal and cannot be enforced ? since it is overridden by the act ? which reigns supreme. >> >> Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above? > I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the Companies Act may override the Bylaws on matters relating to Directors and Registered Members, but not on matters relating to Resource Members (which is an AFRINIC construct that is not reflected in the Companies Act). > > Alan Barrett > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From jbmillogo at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 11:57:09 2016 From: jbmillogo at gmail.com (Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:57:09 +0000 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: Hi Sunday, Last I checked, http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bod/meeting/2016, There is no resolution on the case, which means if a resolution was voted upon, it did not pass. FYI: Approving minutes would not change the outcome of the vote on this resolution. Thank you for response. Quite clear Regards JB 2016-09-30 6:20 GMT+00:00 Sunday Folayan : > Dear Abel, Noah and Members, > > 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. > > However, the summary of the outcome of the Board discussion about the > subject matter is that there was not enough votes to appoint Mr Ntege to > the CoE at this time. > > Best Regards ... > > Sunday. > > On 29/09/2016 15:01, Noah wrote: > > On 28 Sep 2016 13:50, "abel ELITCHA" wrote: > > > > Hi Chair, > > > > "do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which > i believe has happened in the recent past.?" > > I think this question from Noah remains unanswered. Am I right? > > > > Whatever the excuse will be this time, but the this level of disregard is > uncalled for. > > If i may, does the AFRINIC board require a spokes person so that we > membera can suggest electing one who can respond to members queries.? > > Noah > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > -- 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 alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Sep 30 12:24:56 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 16:24:56 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Hi Ashok, > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: > > Dear Alan, > I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by > Andrew. Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. Alan Barrett From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 30 12:28:53 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:28:53 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <9C83D30B-8FCB-4E46-95E2-73F42D9A19BB@liquidtelecom.com> +1 And I would argue that based on what has been said below ? even if it is still in the bylaws it be ignored since from Ashok?s statement it is in fact not in line with the law. So we remove it to sync with the law ? but the limitation does not hold at the next meeting either in my view. Thanks Andrew On 30/09/2016, 15:24, "Alan Barrett" wrote: Hi Ashok, > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: > > Dear Alan, > I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by > Andrew. Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. 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 Fri Sep 30 12:55:44 2016 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 13:55:44 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 30 Sep 2016 13:25, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > Hi Ashok, > > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: , and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > SO: I will suggest not to modify the list settings. Most of the time people hit reply and their mails goes as PM. I think it's absolutely fine for a community list like this to have a default response to the community. One can always do a formal withdrawal OR be mindful of who he/she is replying to before hitting the send button. > > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. > > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. > > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by > > Andrew. > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. > SO: While a member should indeed be allowed to freely determine how they want to exercise their rights(including who to serve as their proxy). One may also want to consider other ways to encourage direct member participation as that could improve diversity during members meeting/discussion; especially towards contributions that may be made. It will be good to see new faces and see actual members at our members meeting. It may also be good to look at possibilities of allowing members to be able to specify the scope of their proxy. For instance a member could say he/she only wants the proxy to act during Board election and not during GC election. Regards > 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 mje at posix.co.za Fri Sep 30 13:18:43 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:18:43 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4bbefb36-5577-4777-ad4b-002c9cbb2b02@posix.co.za> This is the "Elephant". Interestingly, the proxies I carried to Cairo were from multiple African countries and not just from Southern or South Africa. Anyway - that was 7+ years ago now, water under the bridge. I do feel (and generally agree) though that the proxy limit should be completely removed. It will probably give truer reflections of who's playing what games... I also like proxies that optionally provide instructions to the holder. On 30/09/2016 13:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: > Dear Alan, > I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only > during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over > the bylaws. > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing > a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region > where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " > perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is > why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by > the community. > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge > as suggested by Andrew. > Regards > Ashok. > > On 29/09/2016 22:29, Alan Barrett wrote: >>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:09, Andrew Alston >>> wrote: >>> >>> I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would >>> stand up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal >>> opinion on this. >>> >>> The fifth schedule of the companies act ? clause 6, makes specific >>> references to proxies ? and is explicit that any member may appoint >>> anyone as a proxy. >> What the Mauritius Companies Act refers to as Members corresponds to >> what the AFRINIC Bylaws refer to as Registered Members. >> >>> It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states >>> that the entirety of clause 6 applies ?not withstanding any provision >>> in any constitution adopted by the company.? The only exception to >>> this is clause 6 (d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the >>> actual proxy. >>> >>> My reading of this ? and again, I would like to hear informed legal >>> opinion, is that limitations on the proxy instruments that could >>> impact on anyone appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of >>> line with the companies act ? and hence the limitation in our bylaws >>> is illegal and cannot be enforced ? since it is overridden by the act >>> ? which reigns supreme. >>> >>> Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above? >> I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the Companies Act may >> override the Bylaws on matters relating to Directors and Registered >> Members, but not on matters relating to Resource Members (which is an >> AFRINIC construct that is not reflected in the Companies Act). >> >> 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: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From amelnaud at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 14:09:01 2016 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:09:01 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Dear CEO, we appreciate your contributions and clarification. However we would like to remind you that your position does not allow you to make decisions unilaterally, or to intervene in favor of options or proposals. Good governance require you to remain neutral as you are the one in charge of building consensus. Regards Arnaud Le 30 sept. 2016 12:25, "Alan Barrett" a ?crit : > Hi Ashok, > > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon wrote: > > > > Dear Alan, > > I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only > during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. > > Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also > replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list > configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a > ?Reply-To? header in future. > > > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over > the bylaws. > > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing > a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where > AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give > the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation > of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. > > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge > as suggested by > > Andrew. > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies > should be removed. > > 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 jrhountomey at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 14:22:53 2016 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean-Robert Hountomey) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:22:53 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacbca@gmail.com> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by >> those present. > Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. > > 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 Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 30 14:20:44 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:20:44 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <8231A89A-B786-4164-AFE3-E808314ACB60@liquidtelecom.com> Arnaud, Sorry ? but speaking as a member, and wearing my Liquid Telecom hat ? I must respectfully disagree with you in the strongest terms. It may at times be the CEO?s job to gauge consensus ? that does not mean he has to build it. However, in a case such as this ? these are bylaw changes ? he is free to have an opinion as is any member of this community. He is also free to voice that opinion. As a paying member ? I will say that I VALUE the opinion of the CEO ? if I do not know what the CEO is thinking, how can I as a member gauge what I like and what I don?t? How can I as a member engage an organization who has a CEO that is gagged and unable to communicate to the paying members on his views and opinions. So as a member ? I want to hear what he has to say ? I value his opinion ? and I think that restricting him from using his voice and sharing his opinions is to throw away valuable views and guidance which can assist us. Again ? I strongly disagree with your sentiments as stated below. Andrew Alston Liquid Telecommunications ? Group Head of IP Strategy From: Arnaud AMELINA Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:09 To: Alan Barrett Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Dear CEO, we appreciate your contributions and clarification. However we would like to remind you that your position does not allow you to make decisions unilaterally, or to intervene in favor of options or proposals. Good governance require you to remain neutral as you are the one in charge of building consensus. Regards Arnaud Le 30 sept. 2016 12:25, "Alan Barrett" > a ?crit : Hi Ashok, > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon > wrote: > > Dear Alan, > I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by > Andrew. Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. 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 Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 30 14:22:01 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:22:01 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacbca@gmail.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacbca@gmail.com> Message-ID: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. 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 Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Fri Sep 30 14:29:50 2016 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:29:50 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacb ca@gmail.com> Message-ID: As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. > > See fifth schedule section 6 > > Andrew > > > From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 > To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net " > > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum > > Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? > Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? > > (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process > (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote > > On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote >>> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board >>> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at >>> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by >>> those present. >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. >> >> 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 ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 30 14:29:53 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 14:29:53 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> No Omo, Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation *WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGE* The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Jean-Robert Hountomey , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. 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 ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrhountomey at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 14:42:58 2016 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Jean-Robert Hountomey) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 07:42:58 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> Message-ID: <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> > +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that currently do exist Which will take us backward, open the door for further disagreements, add additional burden on the election committee and require additional controls. Jean-Robert. From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Sep 30 14:59:29 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:59:29 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 30 Sep 2016 15:26, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. > Hi Alan, Ok what is going on here.... No No No No, I dont support the sentiment that number limit in proxies should be removed. Lets remember that the bylaws do contain institutional memory; - The community quite recently added the constraint to discourage carrying as many as 20 proxies which is in my opinion still too much. - The bylaws review is so that we can improve accountability, am i right? and as such the removal of the proxy limits cannot be argued to improve accountability imho; - We should not be abusing the on going review process to change bylaws because we can (scope matters) like this. No No No.... - There may be more important improvement to accountability at AFRINIC which we seem to shy away from including: Board recall, CEO to become ex officio etc etc etc and as it suits us we shout loud.. > Alan Barrett > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Sep 30 15:09:41 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:09:41 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <2A1725EE-11E1-4D87-906F-E9D302603668@afrinic.net> > On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:59, Noah wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2016 15:26, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. > > > > Hi Alan, > > Ok what is going on here.... > > No No No No, I dont support the sentiment that number limit in proxies should be removed. We have just received an informal legal opinion that the limit is illegal. Therefore, I suggest that the limit should be removed. However, I also think that we should ask the legal adviser for a more detailed and formal opinion. > Lets remember that the bylaws do contain institutional memory; > > - The community quite recently added the constraint to discourage carrying as many as 20 proxies which is in my opinion still too much. > > - The bylaws review is so that we can improve accountability, am i right? and as such the removal of the proxy limits cannot be argued to improve accountability imho; > > - We should not be abusing the on going review process to change bylaws because we can (scope matters) like this. No No No?. The main reason for the bylaws changes that I am shepherding is to improve accountability, and especially to remove opportunities for institutional capture by minority interests. Removal of the proxy limits can be argued to increae accountability, or to decrease it. The argument can be made in either direction. > - There may be more important improvement to accountability at AFRINIC which we seem to shy away from including: Board recall, CEO to become ex officio etc etc etc and as it suits us we shout loud.. I heard the request for a Board recall ability, and it will be presented in due course. I don?t know what you mean by ?CEO to become ex officio?. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Sep 30 15:11:45 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:11:45 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:42, Jean-Robert Hountomey wrote: > >> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that currently do exist > > Which will take us backward, open the door for further disagreements, add additional burden on the election committee and require additional controls. Actually, removing the limit will simplify logistics, in that it will remove the need for the election committee to check how many proxies each person is carrying. Alan Barrett From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Sep 30 15:14:24 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:14:24 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacb ca@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8F1E5050-F9AA-446A-AD4D-3A7BFA76C111@afrinic.net> > On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:29, Omo Oaiya wrote: > > What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. The task of the election committee would be greatly simplified if we did not have proxies and did not have paper votes, but relied entirely on electronic votes. Alan Barrett -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Sep 30 15:26:46 2016 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:26:46 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] List reply-to address In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4A42FDC0-918E-41FD-866E-F916BBFA60DA@afrinic.net> On 30 Sep 2016, at 16:55, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > On 30 Sep 2016 13:25, "Alan Barrett" wrote: >> and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ?Reply-To? header in future. > SO: I will suggest not to modify the list settings. Most of the time people hit reply and their mails goes as PM. I think it's absolutely fine for a community list like this to have a default response to the community. One can always do a formal withdrawal OR be mindful of who he/she is replying to before hitting the send button. There is no good answer, but I seek to minimise the harm done by mistakes. If the list does not add a reply-to address then there are two kind of mistakes, neither of them very serious: 1. Things that were intended as list replies are accidentally sent as personal replies. trivial problem; they can be re-sent. 2. Things intended as list replies accidentally accumulate a long list of cc: addresses. Minor problem; the people in the CC list get multiple copies of messages. If the list does add a reply-to address, then there is one kind of very serous mistake: 3. Things that were intended as personal replies accidentally get sent to the list. This is potentially a huge problem, as confidential information can be made public. Therefore, to minimise the harm done by mistakes, the list should not add a reply-to address to messages. I realise that this is debatable, but that?s my position. Alan Barrett From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Sep 30 16:35:38 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:35:38 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacbca@gmail.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacbca@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bd4580e-0393-8b40-de0c-f129dad12646@geier.ne.tz> Hi, On 9/30/2016 5:22 PM, Jean-Robert Hountomey wrote: > Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to > keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? > Proxies make sens when > a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to > solve with electronic voting? introducing electronic voting gave more options and rights to resource members. Good. removing proxies would take options and rights away from resource members. Bad. (and not possible for legal reasons) Frank From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Sep 30 16:39:19 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:39:19 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <0773ff91-2e46-9c96-95ef-b3f6f3bacb ca@gmail.com> Message-ID: <006fcd61-5e41-d775-7794-f4270212ca5d@geier.ne.tz> Hi, On 9/30/2016 5:29 PM, Omo Oaiya wrote: > As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that > electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need > them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better > accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance > things out. If you don't need them, the best would be that you don't use them. That's not a good reason to take rights away from other (resource) members. If 15 (resource) members want to assign the same person as a proxy, it is a) their right and b) not your right to deny them this. But I too am not a lawyer. Frank -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Sep 30 16:41:46 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:41:46 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 9/30/2016 5:42 PM, Jean-Robert Hountomey wrote: >> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that >> currently do exist > > Which will take us backward, open the door for further disagreements, > add additional burden on the election committee and require > additional controls. And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. Frank From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 30 17:07:32 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:07:32 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> , Message-ID: +1 Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com ??Vision without execution is hallucination.?? ?D Thomas A. Edison On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:10 pm, Arnaud AMELINA > wrote: Dear CEO, we appreciate your contributions and clarification. However we would like to remind you that your position does not allow you to make decisions unilaterally, or to intervene in favor of options or proposals. Good governance require you to remain neutral as you are the one in charge of building consensus. Regards Arnaud Le 30 sept. 2016 12:25, "Alan Barrett" > a ??crit : Hi Ashok, > On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:27, Ashok Radhakissoon > wrote: > > Dear Alan, > I am only replying to you on this as I advise the Board only.It is only during an AGMM, when called upon, that i intervene. Actually, you replied to the mailing list, but no harm done. I am also replying to the mailing list, and I have asked for the mailing list configuration to be changed so that it does not automatically add a ??Reply-To?? header in future. > You are right in stating that the Company's Act takes precedence over the bylaws. > I recall that after the Cairo election, the Community felt that bringing a substantial number of proxies especially from a particular region where AFRINIC membership was dense could not from a "community " perspective give the best representation for the Africa regions.This is why the limitation of the number of proxies was introduced and voted by the community. > This provision of the bylaws would in no way withstand legal challenge as suggested by > Andrew. Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. 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 badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 30 17:13:27 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:13:27 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> , <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> Andrew On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: No Omo, Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation *WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGE* Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best for members. Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Jean-Robert Hountomey >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. 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 ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 30 17:30:45 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:30:45 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <6B3ED43A-9C41-424C-AAC6-D40D15FA1D37@nftconsult.com> > On 30 Sep 2016, at 7:42 pm, Frank Habicht wrote: > > > On 9/30/2016 5:42 PM, Jean-Robert Hountomey wrote: >>> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that >>> currently do exist >> >> Which will take us backward, open the door for further disagreements, >> add additional burden on the election committee and require >> additional controls. > > And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. As i have mentioned we passionately fought against government interference in the Internet and we are now ok with it. Supposing the Mauritian government imposes a legal tax tomorrow on all Afrinic resource holders /members regardless of where the resources are used since they are allocated from Mauritius. Would we still be ok with Mauritian Law ?? Let's be consistent if we choose to remove the proxies lets not use Mauritian law as the excuse. Let's find plausible consensus among members Regards > > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Fri Sep 30 17:36:48 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:36:48 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <2476B044-27D0-4897-9677-A0A6F6723943@liquidtelecom.com> Badru ? I am very aware there are many jurisdictions and I?ve heard this argument from you sooooo many times. You?re welcome to try and get consensus to move AfriNIC to another juristriction and under the bylaws you could probably even pass a special resolution to do it if you could get those kinda numbers ? but I know how I would be voting in this regard ? but of course if you get a 75% majority for it ? great. What amuses me however is the view that people want to restrict what members can and can?t do because they didn?t like the outcome of a particular scenario ? I have yet to see a single shred of conclusive evidence of proxies being used in any way that is outside of the rules ? I have seen plenty of whining that its impacted things in ways that certain people didn?t like ? but they are very different things. I associate this type of changing of the rules and adding restrictions in my mind with what we have seen in so many parts of the world when an incumbent or someone doesn?t want to accept the will of a clear majority vote ? change the rules? It?s all the same thing in my eyes ? pure and unadulterated hegemony ? and I?m sick of it. If a member wishes to give his proxy to someone ? anyone ? he has a right to do so. If that person uses that proxy in a way the member never intended ? the member can take that up with the person holding the proxy ? it is the members responsibility. If 90% of the members choose to trust one individual carry their votes ? because that is where their faith lies ? that is their choice ? their right ? and their responsibility to deal with the outcomes. That is democracy ? this blatant and transparent attempt to restrict a member?s rights in the name of ?stopping abuse? ? when there is no concrete evidence is a joke. It is undemocratic, it is an insult to the intelligence of the members who sign those proxies, it is transparent manipulation of the system to attempt to achieve a result through the influencing of who can do what ? and it is a joke. This is how I see it ? others my disagree ? but these are the views that I stand by Andrew From: Badru Ntege Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:13 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Omo Oaiya , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Andrew On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: No Omo, Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation *WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGE* Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best for members. Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Jean-Robert Hountomey >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. 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 ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 30 17:44:14 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:44:14 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <2476B044-27D0-4897-9677-A0A6F6723943@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <2476B044-27D0-4897-9677-A0A6F6723943@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <80D3AB73-0C4E-43F4-8888-E49033D8E5DA@liquidtelecom.com> And just to clarify ? the reason I want the proxy limitation rule removed is because I do believe that our bylaws need to be consistent with the jurisdictional rules in which we operate ? not the hypothetical juristriction we may operate in one day if we can ever find sufficient majority to vote for a change. I have long believed that rule is illegal ? I have long believed it is unfair on the members ? and unlike bylaw changes proposed now ? there was *NEVER* a formal vote to insert that clause that meets the bylaw change requirements as they stand today ? and I question if it would have ever passed the threshold when it was inserted ? but we will never know. I also point out that there is precedent for us to change rules that have been found to be legally dubious or been found to disenfranchise members. Please refer back to the debate that was had over company stamps being required on proxies. After it was proved that this would eliminate the ability of companies who had no stamps ? because their jurisdictions did not require such ? the rules were changed and the requirement for such stamps was removed from the election guidelines. Let us try to be more inclusive ? and not attempt to use things to influence results. Andrew From: Andrew Alston Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:36 To: Badru Ntege Cc: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Badru ? I am very aware there are many jurisdictions and I?ve heard this argument from you sooooo many times. You?re welcome to try and get consensus to move AfriNIC to another juristriction and under the bylaws you could probably even pass a special resolution to do it if you could get those kinda numbers ? but I know how I would be voting in this regard ? but of course if you get a 75% majority for it ? great. What amuses me however is the view that people want to restrict what members can and can?t do because they didn?t like the outcome of a particular scenario ? I have yet to see a single shred of conclusive evidence of proxies being used in any way that is outside of the rules ? I have seen plenty of whining that its impacted things in ways that certain people didn?t like ? but they are very different things. I associate this type of changing of the rules and adding restrictions in my mind with what we have seen in so many parts of the world when an incumbent or someone doesn?t want to accept the will of a clear majority vote ? change the rules? It?s all the same thing in my eyes ? pure and unadulterated hegemony ? and I?m sick of it. If a member wishes to give his proxy to someone ? anyone ? he has a right to do so. If that person uses that proxy in a way the member never intended ? the member can take that up with the person holding the proxy ? it is the members responsibility. If 90% of the members choose to trust one individual carry their votes ? because that is where their faith lies ? that is their choice ? their right ? and their responsibility to deal with the outcomes. That is democracy ? this blatant and transparent attempt to restrict a member?s rights in the name of ?stopping abuse? ? when there is no concrete evidence is a joke. It is undemocratic, it is an insult to the intelligence of the members who sign those proxies, it is transparent manipulation of the system to attempt to achieve a result through the influencing of who can do what ? and it is a joke. This is how I see it ? others my disagree ? but these are the views that I stand by Andrew From: Badru Ntege Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:13 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Omo Oaiya , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Andrew On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: No Omo, Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation *WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGE* Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best for members. Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Jean-Robert Hountomey >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. 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 ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net _______________________________________________ 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 Sep 30 17:48:29 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 20:48:29 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <2A1725EE-11E1-4D87-906F-E9D302603668@afrinic.net> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <4951DB9B-6106-4764-86BD-3FE08DD71E68@wacren.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <57EE4C15.9090901@afrinic.net> <2A1725EE-11E1-4D87-906F-E9D302603668@afrinic.net> Message-ID: On 30 Sep 2016 18:11, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 18:59, Noah wrote: > > > > On 30 Sep 2016 15:26, "Alan Barrett" wrote: > > > > > > Thank you for the advice. I suggest that the limit on pnumber of proxies should be removed. > > > > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > Ok what is going on here.... > > > > No No No No, I dont support the sentiment that number limit in proxies should be removed. > > We have just received an informal legal opinion that the limit is illegal. Therefore, I suggest that the limit should be removed. > > However, I also think that we should ask the legal adviser for a more detailed and formal opinion. > Indeed and in agreement so that we stop speculating. > > Lets remember that the bylaws do contain institutional memory; > > > > - The community quite recently added the constraint to discourage carrying as many as 20 proxies which is in my opinion still too much. > > > > - The bylaws review is so that we can improve accountability, am i right? and as such the removal of the proxy limits cannot be argued to improve accountability imho; > > > > - We should not be abusing the on going review process to change bylaws because we can (scope matters) like this. No No No?. > > The main reason for the bylaws changes that I am shepherding is to improve accountability, and especially to remove opportunities for institutional capture by minority interests. > That is our ultimate goal after all. > Removal of the proxy limits can be argued to increae accountability, or to decrease it. The argument can be made in either direction. > How would the removal of proxy decrease accountability where better optional methods like online voting are already in place. Online voting has already been tested to work and has so far been ok and with more improvements, should remain the defacto way of voting considering 90% of the membership dont attend physically and a handful of them participate remotely. In fact even those onsite could vote online while on site. > > - There may be more important improvement to accountability at AFRINIC which we seem to shy away from including: Board recall, CEO to become ex officio etc etc etc and as it suits us we shout loud.. > > I heard the request for a Board recall ability, and it will be presented in due course. > Just like others within the community, the ability to recall the board is something i would be keen to discuss further. > Alan Barrett > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Fri Sep 30 17:48:32 2016 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:48:32 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <2476B044-27D0-4897-9677-A0A6F6723943@liquidtelecom.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com>, <2476B044-27D0-4897-9677-A0A6F6723943@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: As usual we miss the point I think historical reference was mentioned by others and not me. I asked for an open discussion which has happened by other members. My objection is to use legal constraints which goes to limiting options. We are a community of many who are by far wiser than the few of us who are vocal on the list and if we start setting boundaries through legal constraints in my view its against the principles that the Internet echo system. Can I also suggest we remain on topic and avoid the temptation to personalise our arguments. It's all about Afrinic and not us Regards Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? ? Thomas A. Edison On 30 Sep 2016, at 8:37 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: Badru ? I am very aware there are many jurisdictions and I?ve heard this argument from you sooooo many times. You?re welcome to try and get consensus to move AfriNIC to another juristriction and under the bylaws you could probably even pass a special resolution to do it if you could get those kinda numbers ? but I know how I would be voting in this regard ? but of course if you get a 75% majority for it ? great. What amuses me however is the view that people want to restrict what members can and can?t do because they didn?t like the outcome of a particular scenario ? I have yet to see a single shred of conclusive evidence of proxies being used in any way that is outside of the rules ? I have seen plenty of whining that its impacted things in ways that certain people didn?t like ? but they are very different things. I associate this type of changing of the rules and adding restrictions in my mind with what we have seen in so many parts of the world when an incumbent or someone doesn?t want to accept the will of a clear majority vote ? change the rules? It?s all the same thing in my eyes ? pure and unadulterated hegemony ? and I?m sick of it. If a member wishes to give his proxy to someone ? anyone ? he has a right to do so. If that person uses that proxy in a way the member never intended ? the member can take that up with the person holding the proxy ? it is the members responsibility. If 90% of the members choose to trust one individual carry their votes ? because that is where their faith lies ? that is their choice ? their right ? and their responsibility to deal with the outcomes. That is democracy ? this blatant and transparent attempt to restrict a member?s rights in the name of ?stopping abuse? ? when there is no concrete evidence is a joke. It is undemocratic, it is an insult to the intelligence of the members who sign those proxies, it is transparent manipulation of the system to attempt to achieve a result through the influencing of who can do what ? and it is a joke. This is how I see it ? others my disagree ? but these are the views that I stand by Andrew From: Badru Ntege > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:13 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Omo Oaiya >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Andrew On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: No Omo, Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation *WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGE* Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best for members. Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Jean-Robert Hountomey >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. 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 ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 30 17:53:10 2016 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 17:53:10 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> <2476B044-27D0-4897-9677-A0A6F6723943@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <61820305-998D-4536-9A4E-56E37D539D1A@liquidtelecom.com> There is nothing personal in what I have said ? it is what I feel is at the very heart of this discussion. Unless we are transparent about the heart of a discussion and get down to the real nuts and bolts we will never find resolution. As I said ? this is my perception. You talk about legal constraints and using them ? is that not EXACTLY what has been done with the proxy limitations? Using a bylaw constraint to control the actions of members? Let us also be consistent in our arguments Andrew From: Badru Ntege Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:48 To: Andrew Alston Cc: Omo Oaiya , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As usual we miss the point I think historical reference was mentioned by others and not me. I asked for an open discussion which has happened by other members. My objection is to use legal constraints which goes to limiting options. We are a community of many who are by far wiser than the few of us who are vocal on the list and if we start setting boundaries through legal constraints in my view its against the principles that the Internet echo system. Can I also suggest we remain on topic and avoid the temptation to personalise our arguments. It's all about Afrinic and not us Regards Badru Ntege CEO NFT Consult Ltd Www.Nftconsult.com ?Vision without execution is hallucination.? ? Thomas A. Edison On 30 Sep 2016, at 8:37 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: Badru ? I am very aware there are many jurisdictions and I?ve heard this argument from you sooooo many times. You?re welcome to try and get consensus to move AfriNIC to another juristriction and under the bylaws you could probably even pass a special resolution to do it if you could get those kinda numbers ? but I know how I would be voting in this regard ? but of course if you get a 75% majority for it ? great. What amuses me however is the view that people want to restrict what members can and can?t do because they didn?t like the outcome of a particular scenario ? I have yet to see a single shred of conclusive evidence of proxies being used in any way that is outside of the rules ? I have seen plenty of whining that its impacted things in ways that certain people didn?t like ? but they are very different things. I associate this type of changing of the rules and adding restrictions in my mind with what we have seen in so many parts of the world when an incumbent or someone doesn?t want to accept the will of a clear majority vote ? change the rules? It?s all the same thing in my eyes ? pure and unadulterated hegemony ? and I?m sick of it. If a member wishes to give his proxy to someone ? anyone ? he has a right to do so. If that person uses that proxy in a way the member never intended ? the member can take that up with the person holding the proxy ? it is the members responsibility. If 90% of the members choose to trust one individual carry their votes ? because that is where their faith lies ? that is their choice ? their right ? and their responsibility to deal with the outcomes. That is democracy ? this blatant and transparent attempt to restrict a member?s rights in the name of ?stopping abuse? ? when there is no concrete evidence is a joke. It is undemocratic, it is an insult to the intelligence of the members who sign those proxies, it is transparent manipulation of the system to attempt to achieve a result through the influencing of who can do what ? and it is a joke. This is how I see it ? others my disagree ? but these are the views that I stand by Andrew From: Badru Ntege > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 20:13 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Omo Oaiya >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Andrew On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > wrote: No Omo, Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation *WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL CHALLENGE* Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best for members. Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. Andrew From: Omo Oaiya > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: Jean-Robert Hountomey >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance things out. On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston > wrote: Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. See fifth schedule section 6 Andrew From: Jean-Robert Hountomey > Date: Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by those present. Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. 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 ? Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Sep 30 17:54:27 2016 From: mje at posix.co.za (Mark Elkins) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 19:54:27 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <9482E057-E45D-456A-A9F1-22288C457592@liquidtelecom.com> <3EBCFCCD-BDEC-4E8F-867A-DC579411A3F5@afrinic.net> <6CDD739C-3DA1-4037-9B1E-269F6940FFDF@liquidtelecom.com> <3A461E36-FC2F-4FCC-9443-67D848748762@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <41d4338a-3d86-a60e-983c-f3b1df96dbba@posix.co.za> I don't think the Proxy issue would survive a legal challenge in any African country based on English (or Dutch) law. French law can be different but this is law about how a company operates and with a few minor exceptions (eg company stamps) - I'd expect this to be very similar the world over. I personally prefer freedom for the individual member to choose the way in which they want to vote, whether in person, via proxy (without restrictions) or via electronic voting. On 30/09/2016 19:13, Badru Ntege wrote: > Andrew > > On 30 Sep 2016, at 5:30 pm, Andrew Alston > > wrote: > >> No Omo, >> >> >> >> Please read what Ashok said ? the limitation **WILL NOT SURVIVE LEGAL >> CHALLENGE** >> > > Afrinic is a regional organisation if we are being shackled by > jurisdiction of registration we have 52 other jurisdictions. > > We have options. Let's remain very open and objective to what is best > for members. > > Consensus not legal shackles is what the Internet is built on. > > > >> >> >> The companies act does not ALLOW the limitation. >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Omo Oaiya > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:29 >> *To: *Andrew Alston > > >> *Cc: *Jean-Robert Hountomey > >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net >> " > > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> As you have repeated but that is by the way. What is clear is that >> electronic voting has solved the issue with proxies so we don?t need >> them. If the companies act is restrictive and does not support better >> accountability, proxies can be limited to one per member to balance >> things out. >> >> >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 15:22, Andrew Alston >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Jean-Robert because proxies are enshrined in the companies act and >> the act explicitly states that they cannot be removed irrespective >> of what a company?s bylaws / constitution says. >> >> >> >> See fifth schedule section 6 >> >> >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: *Jean-Robert Hountomey > > >> *Date: *Friday, 30 September 2016 at 17:22 >> *To: *"community-discuss at afrinic.net >> " >> > >> *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum >> >> >> >> Talking about Board Members election (1) and (2), why do we want to keep Proxies While we have Electronic voting ? >> >> Proxies make sens when a member cannot attend the meeting in person, isn't what we wanted to solve with electronic voting? >> >> >> >> (1) http://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process >> >> (2) http://afrinic.net/en/about/agmm/participate-vote >> >> >> >> On 9/29/16 8:56 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: >> >> On 30 Sep 2016, at 02:26, Mark Elkins wrote >> >> The only time the Proxy Restrictions are enforced is for the Board >> >> elections. Traditionally, the elections for the PDP Co-Chair is hands at >> >> the meeting and the elections for the ASO-AC is by secret ballot by >> >> those present. >> >> Proxy restrictions apply to elections by the Members (Resource Members and Registered Members). ASO-AC and PDWG elections are by the community or by the PDWG, not by the Members. Board elections and now Governance Committee elections are by the Members. >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> ? >> >> Omo Oaiya >> CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN >> Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 >> Skype: kodion >> http://www.wacren.net >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 4230 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Sep 30 17:57:48 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 20:57:48 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: <6B3ED43A-9C41-424C-AAC6-D40D15FA1D37@nftconsult.com> References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> <6B3ED43A-9C41-424C-AAC6-D40D15FA1D37@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <78304896-5c76-2e45-8adc-7f9f8f968690@geier.ne.tz> Hi Badru, On 9/30/2016 8:30 PM, Badru Ntege wrote: > Supposing the Mauritian government imposes a legal tax tomorrow on > all Afrinic resource holders /members regardless of where the > resources are used since they are allocated from Mauritius. Suppose the Ugandan government does the same - we'll be happy to be in Mauritius. I think your argument is not relevant - too unlikely, and if something happens, AfriNIC can move - we all know that. > Let's be consistent if we choose to remove the proxies lets not use > Mauritian law as the excuse. forget Mauritian law (but i suggest AfriNIC employees should comply with it) ;-) I gave other good reasons: introducing electronic voting gave more options and rights to resource members. Good. removing proxies would take options and rights away from resource members. Bad. (and not possible for legal reasons) I would even say that the latter makes AfriNIC procedures less democratic. Any thoughts about this? Have a nice weekend! Frank From jrhountomey at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 18:21:27 2016 From: jrhountomey at gmail.com (Hountomey Jean Robert) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 11:21:27 -0700 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: > And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. Great. Are we trying to fix a mistake we have all made in the pass ? It is a common understanding that the election of Board Members should not be questionable. Keep both without providing safeguards and controls make the process questionable, and open doors for discussion. 2016-09-30 9:41 GMT-07:00 Frank Habicht : > > On 9/30/2016 5:42 PM, Jean-Robert Hountomey wrote: > >> +1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that > >> currently do exist > > > > Which will take us backward, open the door for further disagreements, > > add additional burden on the election committee and require > > additional controls. > > And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. > > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sep 30 18:26:54 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 21:26:54 +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 30 Sep 2016 09:20, "Sunday Folayan" wrote: > > Dear Abel, Noah and Members, > > The Board met on 10th August 2016 and I tabled the matter as promised. > > A resolution was voted upon, > Hello Sunday, JB is right. The update on the weblink doesnt show this specific matter as having been discussed and a resolution voted upon. I only see resolutions that were voted upon to be the below which none even talks about this issue. August 2016 -------------- Resolution 201608.294 Resolution 201608.295 Resolution 201608.296 Resolution 201608.297 Resolution 201608.298 Resolution 201608.299 > However, the summary of the outcome of the Board discussion about the subject matter is that there was not enough votes to appoint Mr Ntege to the CoE at this time. > So this is confusing and kind of misleadind now. > Best Regards ... > > Sunday. > Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From noah at neo.co.tz Fri Sep 30 18:31:51 2016 From: noah at neo.co.tz (Noah) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 21:31:51 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <070E72C7-90EF-48B7-BAB2-892040E68D23@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 30 Sep 2016 21:23, "Hountomey Jean Robert" wrote: > > > And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. > > Great. > > Are we trying to fix a mistake we have all made in the pass ? > +1 and this is why we are all openly discussing this issues so that we can all find a fix. Noah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Fri Sep 30 19:57:23 2016 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 20:57:23 +0100 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: <7b04a310-1525-e246-18dd-ad4b91ff5140@gmail.com> On 30/09/2016 19:26, Noah wrote: > > On 30 Sep 2016 09:20, "Sunday Folayan" > wrote: > > > > Dear Abel, Noah and Members, > > > > The Board met on 10th August 2016 and I tabled the matter as promised. > > > > A resolution was voted upon, > > > > Hello Sunday, > > JB is right. The update on the weblink doesnt show this specific > matter as having been discussed and a resolution voted upon. > > I only see resolutions that were voted upon to be the below which none > even talks about this issue. > > August 2016 > -------------- > Resolution 201608.294 > Resolution 201608.295 > Resolution 201608.296 > Resolution 201608.297 > Resolution 201608.298 > Resolution 201608.299 > > > However, the summary of the outcome of the Board discussion about > the subject matter is that there was not enough votes to appoint Mr > Ntege to the CoE at this time. > > > > So this is confusing and kind of misleadind now. > Dear Noah and JB, The list that you saw is a list of resolutions that were adopted. Proposed resolutions that were not adopted will not appear in that list. The minutes of the relevant meeting will include proposed resolutions that were not adopted. As I said before, the minutes of that meeting have not yet been approved. Regards ... Sunday. -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 geier at geier.ne.tz Fri Sep 30 20:16:00 2016 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2016 23:16:00 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <8b96d562-0842-bb4c-9026-c89b0853fb43@posix.co.za> <006D848C-5FE5-4CC7-A0F6-DFEC45918F72@nftconsult.com> <6A8D2AF5-4AD9-487B-92E6-D0FB9121DDD4@trstech.net> <6524FA98-0B3F-452A-B70E-485DE2AB41D6@liquidtelecom.com> <4FD9A772-C426-4263-8DE9-25BD97C27D98@nftconsult.com> <28CE8EF2-B9AE-4D5A-8A6C-5104681A9085@liquidtelecom.com> <4f0fc69e-80a5-c49f-ec8f-5c2cfbad6f98@jsdaav.com> <5a01ccc2-776d-2751-dba9-244aa08cd7d1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On 9/30/2016 9:21 PM, Hountomey Jean Robert wrote: >> And will make AfriNIC procedures legal under Mauritius law. > > Great. > > Are we trying to fix a mistake we have all made in the pass ? There is room for misunderstandings, and I don't want any to happen. What action or omission do you mean by "mistake" ? Thanks, Frank From landriam at ymail.com Mon Sep 19 13:34:22 2016 From: landriam at ymail.com (L.A. Ym) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 16:34:22 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1C9E2EFFD30E451182FA79832E2A1C8B@toshiba> +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 Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment- bylaws changes On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango 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 > 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 >> 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 > 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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 Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com Tue Sep 20 21:43:47 2016 From: Ben.Roberts at liquidtelecom.com (Ben Roberts) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 21:43:47 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes In-Reply-To: References: <66EA5281-23B7-4E2F-A866-64B2EC401FF8@afrinic.net> <25F7D1CF-2E99-42D5-B047-20ED215C00B4@afrinic.net> <80BA55D7-0F6F-4FAA-91EF-2FF4AF185639@gmail.com> <8C62E426-18A9-49E0-B928-90111058789A@liquidtelecom.com> <73D978C9-C1E1-412F-A9FA-6401D038E45F@wacren.net> <42EFF34B-41BB-4D1D-9D90-629096D70D02@liquidtelecom.com>, Message-ID: 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 > wrote: Hi, On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston > 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 > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 22:14 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "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 >: 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 > 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 > wrote: I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below. Thanks Andrew From: Mike Silber > Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Cc: "members-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry > 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 https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss _______________________________________________ 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 otieno.barrack at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 05:50:50 2016 From: otieno.barrack at gmail.com (Barrack Otieno) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:50:50 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Well done Andrew and Liquid, Way to go, where next?:-) Regards On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston 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 From arthur at afrinic.net Thu Sep 29 06:19:09 2016 From: arthur at afrinic.net (ARTHUR CARINDAL) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:49:09 +0530 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <78A43B26-660D-4B1A-94D5-339715D6ED62@afrinic.net> 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 facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | 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 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: From honlue at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 06:50:07 2016 From: honlue at gmail.com (Musa Stephen Honlue) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 10:50:07 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Well done. On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno" wrote: > Well done Andrew and Liquid, > > Way to go, where next?:-) > > > Regards > > On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston 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: From miku.ec at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 08:48:59 2016 From: miku.ec at gmail.com (Miku, E. Cornelius) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:48:59 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: 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: From loganaden at gmail.com Thu Sep 29 13:29:38 2016 From: loganaden at gmail.com (Loganaden Velvindron) Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:29:38 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe In-Reply-To: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> References: <195BB53C-6CAB-4F38-B717-BEC75E912829@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston 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 ?