[Community-Discuss] [govcom] Independent investigation

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Mike,

Firstly – thank you for your response, it is, as always appreciated.


  *   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.

Thanks- that’s good information and instils a sense of confidence

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.

I have no fantasies about what it will or will not reveal – I am merely pointing out that it could impact elections – and hence timing is critical – though I agree that an appropriate process is critical (hence the initial question)

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.

Understood – and I understand the nature of delays – it is not the delays I was objecting to – it was the lack of keeping the community informed about said delays once they became apparently that I was objecting to.




  *   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.


You are 100% correct I would have found a rushed process unacceptable – and a process that excluded interviews with key persons unacceptable – and again – I acknowledge that a process must be followed

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.

This is about the only point in your entire email where I fundamentally disagree with you – and in most cases I would agree with you – however – this is not most cases – time and again this community has been promised answers on a variety of issues only to see them substantially delayed or never arrive at all – and trust is at an all-time low.  Hence – a community that is informed of delays (even if it is a simple statement that says – there have been delays – we are working on a revised timeline – bear with us) simply serves to engender trust in the fact that the process is actually still continuing.

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 won’t elaborate on this point then ☺ I believe it will become apparent in due course

  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?

Again – I have never advocated a rushed or incomplete process – I advocate for communication in the event of delays so that this community is assured that delays are not being manufactured

Andrew


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180430/dc02e428/attachment.html>