[Community-Discuss] [govcom] Independent investigation

[Mike Silber]

Hi Andrew

I speak in my personal capacity. I am a member of the GC, but do NOT speak on behalf of the GC. I am just taking the opportunity to make some personal comments, below:

> On 30 Apr 2018, at 06:08, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> 
> Wafa,
>  
> I have a number of questions and some comments on this.
>  
> Firstly – is the GC prepared to reveal who makes up this investigation team – since this is critical to the neutrality of the report

The investigation team was made up of barristers from a leading Mauritian chambers, with experience in both HR and corporate governance issues. There was a liaison from the GC to help facilitate their work, but who did not participate in the interviews or the drafting of the report. The chambers will be identified in the report. It will not be appropriate to identify them prior to publication to avoid any attempts at interference.

> Secondly – Considering that there are elections coming up and it is entirely possible that the results of this investigation could implicate the entire board as regards their actions taken in response to this mess,

I think you are leaping to conclusions without any foundation. Nevertheless your fantasies of what the investigation may or may not reveal have nothing to do with the need to conduct a considered and appropriate process.
 
> for the GC to come back and announce a delay that runs into the start of the AIS week – and to announce this only after the issue was queried on a public list – is in my view simply unacceptable.

Your comment is noted. I agree that the delay is unfortunate, however I am not sure that your view of what is or is not acceptable is at issue here. The investigators were working to a strict timeline. There were certain delays, the cause of which will be disclosed in due course. That put the process back almost a week.

The query had nothing to do with the announcement. The announcement was made once we knew the revised schedule with some degree of certainty.

I am quite sure that you would likewise find a rushed process “unacceptable” or a process that excluded interviews with key persons similarly “unacceptable”. So please tone down the rhetoric. 
>  
> If the GC knew there would be a delay – surely it would have been wise to announce said delay at the time it was known

I did not think it was respectful to the community to indicate a revised date UNTIL the GC was sure it would be met. It seems my colleagues shared a similar view. 

> so that those of us who are casting votes in the upcoming election, and also dealing with this boards refusal to table certain resolutions, could have made decisions?

I fail to see the connection.

>   I fail to see how it is in the interests of good corporate governance to announce a delay the day before the report is due with electronic voting on elections that affect the board positions already open.

And I fail to see how a rushed or incomplete process would be in the interests of good governance?

Mike


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180430/cd3d0092/attachment.html>