From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Dec 4 07:24:10 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 07:24:10 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Message-ID: Hi AfriNIC, I was running my stats scripts and I noticed something which I found kind of alarming and I'd like to hear thoughts on why this might be. Now - I realize this is still early December 2018 - but we're almost at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN's about to be issued - I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate across the continent than at any year since 2009: 2009: 82 2010: 113 2011: 109 2012: 128 2013: 155 2014: 134 2015: 151 2016: 166 2017: 152 2018: 99 With the exceptions of Botswana (2 in 2018, 1 in 2017), Egypt (2 in 2018, 1 in 2017), and Tanzania (5 in 2018 and 2 in 2017) the ASN allocation rates in every single country on the continent are way down, and across the continent in total, down by more than 30% when compared to 2017 - that is *extremely* alarming when considered in the context of the African ecosystem and its growth - especially when we consider that Africa as a continent already only accounts for 1653 allocated ASN's of the 62700 odd ASN's in the global BGP table (2.6%) and in terms of active ASN's on the continent that drops to roughly 1.9% As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their thoughts on this are - and no - before I get jumped on - I am not blaming AFRINIC for the drop - but it certainly does warrant questions being asked. Thanks Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Tue Dec 4 08:06:44 2018 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:06:44 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Message-ID: <80F33A40-364B-4C10-B77B-29C0A3C1F587@nftconsult.com> Andrew Ps ? (I?m not jumping on you) My simplistic view is that the community has slowly disintegrated into self-interest corners and unfortunately the secretariat seems to have been driven into a corner of always defending actions that the outreach function over the last three years is not given that much priority. ?self interest?---some will choose to not contribute less they get a barrage of negative responses.------some relish in the negative responses and really don?t care.-----some use proxies to protect their identities---- and the list goes on. I very rarely see progressive or additive content on all our discussion lists.?? Most emails with content are either threatening action against volunteers or accusing secretariat and staff. An atmosphere like that can never be progressive.?? Human beings are not machine?s so mistakes will be done and they will have consequences but then after that life must move on. We all must have our moment in the mirror and wonder or even ask ourselves how much positive energy vs negative energy we have contributed to the Afrinic community, The one fact is that AfriNIC will outleave most of us. I think we need to step back and let this organization grow, and also allow ourselves to co-exist.? We do not need to agree with each other all the time and we must accept that most times we won?t get our way. Lets use the festive season to create a new friendly and progressive climate.? ? My very simplistic view.? (at times simplicity gives better results) ? From: Andrew Alston Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:30 AM To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Hi AfriNIC, I was running my stats scripts and I noticed something which I found kind of alarming and I?d like to hear thoughts on why this might be. Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate across the continent than at any year since 2009: 2009: 82 2010: 113 2011: 109 2012: 128 2013: 155 2014: 134 2015: 151 2016: 166 2017: 152 2018: 99 With the exceptions of Botswana (2 in 2018, 1 in 2017), Egypt (2 in 2018, 1 in 2017), and Tanzania (5 in 2018 and 2 in 2017) the ASN allocation rates in every single country on the continent are way down, and across the continent in total, down by more than 30% when compared to 2017 ? that is *extremely* alarming when considered in the context of the African ecosystem and its growth ? especially when we consider that Africa as a continent already only accounts for 1653 allocated ASN?s of the 62700 odd ASN?s in the global BGP table (2.6%) and in terms of active ASN?s on the continent that drops to roughly 1.9% As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions being asked. Thanks Andrew _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 63426 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sm+af at afrinic.net Tue Dec 4 12:10:16 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 04:10:16 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> Hi Andrew, At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: >Now ? I realize this is still early December >2018 ? but we?re almost at the end of the year >and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be >issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a >lower ASN allocation rate across the continent than at any year since 2009: > >2009: 82 >2010: 113 >2011: 109 >2012: 128 >2013: 155 >2014: 134 >2015: 151 >2016: 166 >2017: 152 >2018: 99 Thanks for sharing the statistics. I took a quick look at the information which is published. The results were as follows: 2015: 152 2016: 165 2017: 152 2018: 162 >As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet >growth across the continent, I really think it >would be good to understand what their thoughts >on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? >I am not blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it >certainly does warrant questions being asked. In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what happened. Regards, S. Moonesamy From geier at geier.ne.tz Tue Dec 4 12:55:19 2018 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:55:19 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> Message-ID: <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> Hi, see inline On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Andrew, > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: >> >> 2009: 82 >> 2010: 113 >> 2011: 109 >> 2012: 128 >> 2013: 155 >> 2014: 134 >> 2015: 151 >> 2016: 166 >> 2017: 152 >> 2018: 99 > > Thanks for sharing the statistics.? I took a quick look at the > information which is published.?? The results were as follows: > > ? 2015: 152 > ? 2016: 165 > ? 2017: 152 > ? 2018: 162 since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l 163 [frank at fisi ~]$ >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions >> being asked. > > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what > happened. Agenda item 1: was there a drop? Frank From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Dec 4 13:07:47 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 13:07:47 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: That?s well interesting. Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it seems the latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the stats in the delegated file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY different from the latest file that I pulled today. I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked ones and will re-run the stats Andrew From: Frank Habicht Sent: 04 December 2018 15:55 To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Hi, see inline On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Andrew, > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: >> >> 2009: 82 >> 2010: 113 >> 2011: 109 >> 2012: 128 >> 2013: 155 >> 2014: 134 >> 2015: 151 >> 2016: 166 >> 2017: 152 >> 2018: 99 > > Thanks for sharing the statistics. I took a quick look at the > information which is published. The results were as follows: > > 2015: 152 > 2016: 165 > 2017: 152 > 2018: 162 since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l 163 [frank at fisi ~]$ >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions >> being asked. > > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what > happened. Agenda item 1: was there a drop? 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 sm+af at afrinic.net Tue Dec 4 13:49:36 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 05:49:36 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204053838.0d072c18@elandnews.com> Hi Frank, At 04:55 AM 04-12-2018, Frank Habicht wrote: >since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. I'll comment below. >Agenda item 1: >was there a drop? Based on the numbers which both of us got, I would conclude that there wasn't a drop in 2018. Regards, S. Moonesamy From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Tue Dec 4 08:06:44 2018 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:06:44 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Message-ID: <80F33A40-364B-4C10-B77B-29C0A3C1F587@nftconsult.com> Andrew Ps ? (I?m not jumping on you) My simplistic view is that the community has slowly disintegrated into self-interest corners and unfortunately the secretariat seems to have been driven into a corner of always defending actions that the outreach function over the last three years is not given that much priority. ?self interest?---some will choose to not contribute less they get a barrage of negative responses.------some relish in the negative responses and really don?t care.-----some use proxies to protect their identities---- and the list goes on. I very rarely see progressive or additive content on all our discussion lists.?? Most emails with content are either threatening action against volunteers or accusing secretariat and staff. An atmosphere like that can never be progressive.?? Human beings are not machine?s so mistakes will be done and they will have consequences but then after that life must move on. We all must have our moment in the mirror and wonder or even ask ourselves how much positive energy vs negative energy we have contributed to the Afrinic community, The one fact is that AfriNIC will outleave most of us. I think we need to step back and let this organization grow, and also allow ourselves to co-exist.? We do not need to agree with each other all the time and we must accept that most times we won?t get our way. Lets use the festive season to create a new friendly and progressive climate.? ? My very simplistic view.? (at times simplicity gives better results) ? From: Andrew Alston Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 10:30 AM To: "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Hi AfriNIC, I was running my stats scripts and I noticed something which I found kind of alarming and I?d like to hear thoughts on why this might be. Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate across the continent than at any year since 2009: 2009: 82 2010: 113 2011: 109 2012: 128 2013: 155 2014: 134 2015: 151 2016: 166 2017: 152 2018: 99 With the exceptions of Botswana (2 in 2018, 1 in 2017), Egypt (2 in 2018, 1 in 2017), and Tanzania (5 in 2018 and 2 in 2017) the ASN allocation rates in every single country on the continent are way down, and across the continent in total, down by more than 30% when compared to 2017 ? that is *extremely* alarming when considered in the context of the African ecosystem and its growth ? especially when we consider that Africa as a continent already only accounts for 1653 allocated ASN?s of the 62700 odd ASN?s in the global BGP table (2.6%) and in terms of active ASN?s on the continent that drops to roughly 1.9% As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions being asked. Thanks Andrew _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 63426 bytes Desc: not available URL: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 16:34:30 2018 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (Komi Elitcha) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:34:30 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> Andrew, Could you please cross check your data? next time before alarming the world? Always trying to make the organization? looks bad? does not? serve? anybody. We expect high standard from former board members... Thanks. Le 04/12/2018 ? 13:07, Andrew Alston a ?crit?: > > That?s well interesting. > > ? > > Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it seems > the latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the stats in the > delegated file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY different from the > latest file that I pulled today. > > ? > > I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked ones > and will re-run the stats > > ? > > Andrew > > ? > > ? > > *From:*Frank Habicht > *Sent:* 04 December 2018 15:55 > *To:* community-discuss at afrinic.net > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations > > ? > > Hi, > see inline > > On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: > >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost > >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be > >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate > >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: > >> > >> 2009: 82 > >> 2010: 113 > >> 2011: 109 > >> 2012: 128 > >> 2013: 155 > >> 2014: 134 > >> 2015: 151 > >> 2016: 166 > >> 2017: 152 > >> 2018: 99 > > > > Thanks for sharing the statistics.? I took a quick look at the > > information which is published.?? The results were as follows: > > > > ? 2015: 152 > > ? 2016: 165 > > ? 2017: 152 > > ? 2018: 162 > > since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. > > [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' > delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l > 163 > [frank at fisi ~]$ > > > > >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the > >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their > >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not > >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions > >> being asked. > > > > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what > > happened. > > > Agenda item 1: > was there a drop? > > > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- KE https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pEpkey.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 2460 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Dec 4 16:43:42 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 16:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Komi, Let me be blunt ? I downloaded a file from the AFRINIC ftp server ? I have a *date stamped file* with the data of the transfer on it ? from last night ? I processed my data against the AFRINIC LATEST delegated file. Today ? when it was said to me ? the numbers don?t match ? I downloaded the new latest file ? and got new data and checked it. AfriNIC staff are more than free to confirm from the FTP logs that I pulled the latest file to do the data processing I did when I said I did ? I will happily give them the IP I downloaded from off list. Therefore ? if a link is broken or pointing at the wrong data ? these things happen ? I double checked it against a file called delegated-afrinic-latest ? downloaded yesterday on the 3rd of December ? so ? quite frankly ? it is what it is. Let me also address something else you said ? you expect more from former board members. Let me be VERY clear here ? I am a member of this community ? and I carry the votes for members ? beyond that ? my time on the board is over ? and other than the fact that I am bound by an NDA which prevents me revealing so many things I would love to talk about ? I do not believe that my status as a former board member has any relevance in any participation I make since the day I left the board. So please ? do not even TRY and hold that one over my head ? it doesn?t hold any water with me. Andrew From: Komi Elitcha Date: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 19:34 To: Andrew Alston , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Andrew, Could you please cross check your data next time before alarming the world? Always trying to make the organization looks bad does not serve anybody. We expect high standard from former board members... Thanks. Le 04/12/2018 ? 13:07, Andrew Alston a ?crit : That?s well interesting. Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it seems the latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the stats in the delegated file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY different from the latest file that I pulled today. I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked ones and will re-run the stats Andrew From: Frank Habicht Sent: 04 December 2018 15:55 To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Hi, see inline On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Andrew, > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: >> >> 2009: 82 >> 2010: 113 >> 2011: 109 >> 2012: 128 >> 2013: 155 >> 2014: 134 >> 2015: 151 >> 2016: 166 >> 2017: 152 >> 2018: 99 > > Thanks for sharing the statistics. I took a quick look at the > information which is published. The results were as follows: > > 2015: 152 > 2016: 165 > 2017: 152 > 2018: 162 since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l 163 [frank at fisi ~]$ >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions >> being asked. > > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what > happened. Agenda item 1: was there a drop? Frank _______________________________________________ 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 -- KE https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seun.ojedeji at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 19:22:56 2018 From: seun.ojedeji at gmail.com (Seun Ojedeji) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:22:56 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Andrew, Let me attempt to respond to one of your comment which I think you continue to repeat: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 17:44 Andrew Alston ....and other than the fact that I am bound by an NDA which prevents me > revealing so many things I would love to talk about ? > SO: As one who served with you on the Board, and while I acknowledge that there is always room for improvement on Board operations, I encourage you to stop giving an impression that there are highly bad things on the Board that NDA has prevented you from saying. As I have told you in the past and will repeat once again, if your goal and intention is indeed to have a better AFRINIC and if communicating that through public list may impact upon your NDA, please feel free to send them directly to the Board. Regards > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Komi Elitcha > *Date: *Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 19:34 > *To: *Andrew Alston , " > community-discuss at afrinic.net" > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations > > > > Andrew, > Could you please cross check your data next time before alarming the > world? Always trying to make the organization looks bad does not serve > anybody. We expect high standard from former board members... > > Thanks. > > > > > > Le 04/12/2018 ? 13:07, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > > That?s well interesting. > > > > Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it seems the > latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the stats in the delegated > file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY different from the latest file > that I pulled today. > > > > I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked ones and > will re-run the stats > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From:* Frank Habicht > *Sent:* 04 December 2018 15:55 > *To:* community-discuss at afrinic.net > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations > > > > Hi, > see inline > > On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: > >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost > >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be > >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate > >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: > >> > >> 2009: 82 > >> 2010: 113 > >> 2011: 109 > >> 2012: 128 > >> 2013: 155 > >> 2014: 134 > >> 2015: 151 > >> 2016: 166 > >> 2017: 152 > >> 2018: 99 > > > > Thanks for sharing the statistics. I took a quick look at the > > information which is published. The results were as follows: > > > > 2015: 152 > > 2016: 165 > > 2017: 152 > > 2018: 162 > > since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. > > [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' > delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l > 163 > [frank at fisi ~]$ > > > > >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the > >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their > >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not > >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions > >> being asked. > > > > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what > > happened. > > > Agenda item 1: > was there a drop? > > > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > -- > > KE > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 19:32:27 2018 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (Komi Elitcha) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:32:27 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <363f7177-befd-34b7-a7c6-d5c210c8e484@gmail.com> Andrew, Le 04/12/2018 ? 16:43, Andrew Alston a ?crit?: > > Komi, > > ? > > ? > > Therefore ? if a link is broken or pointing at the wrong data ? these > things happen ? I double checked it against a file called > delegated-afrinic-latest ? downloaded yesterday on the 3^rd of > December ? so ? quite frankly ? it is what it is. > What does "cross-check" means according to you? I have not said "double check" > > Andrew > > ? > > ? > > *From: *Komi Elitcha > *Date: *Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 19:34 > *To: *Andrew Alston , > "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > *Subject: *Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations > > ? > > Andrew, > Could you please cross check your data? next time before alarming the > world? Always trying to make the organization? looks bad? does not? > serve? anybody. We expect high standard from former board members... > > Thanks. > > ? > > ? > > Le 04/12/2018 ? 13:07, Andrew Alston a ?crit?: > > That?s well interesting. > > ? > > Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it > seems the latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the > stats in the delegated file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY > different from the latest file that I pulled today. > > ? > > I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked > ones and will re-run the stats > > ? > > Andrew > > ? > > ? > > *From:* Frank Habicht > *Sent:* 04 December 2018 15:55 > *To:* community-discuss at afrinic.net > > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations > > ? > > Hi, > see inline > > On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: > >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re > almost > >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s > about to be > >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN > allocation rate > >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: > >> > >> 2009: 82 > >> 2010: 113 > >> 2011: 109 > >> 2012: 128 > >> 2013: 155 > >> 2014: 134 > >> 2015: 151 > >> 2016: 166 > >> 2017: 152 > >> 2018: 99 > > > > Thanks for sharing the statistics.? I took a quick look at the > > information which is published.?? The results were as follows: > > > > ? 2015: 152 > > ? 2016: 165 > > ? 2017: 152 > > ? 2018: 162 > > since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. > > [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' > delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l > 163 > [frank at fisi ~]$ > > > > >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the > >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what > their > >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not > >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant > questions > >> being asked. > > > > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to > understand what > > happened. > > > Agenda item 1: > was there a drop? > > > Frank > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > -- > KE > https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ -- KE https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pEpkey.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 2460 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Dec 4 19:36:03 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:36:03 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5A998DBA-8B49-4BAF-9A4C-45909CCD7172@liquidtelecom.com> Seun, Firstly ? my beliefs on the board process and the workings of the board are mine ? and my opinions are my opinions ? and there is nothing that stops me stating that in my *opinion* things are *deeply* flawed ? and that I am prohibited from clarifying WHY I hope those opinions. The counter argument to what you say is simple ? if things ARENT problematic ? then waiver the NDA ? you should have nothing to hide. As for my goals ? my goals are to ensure that there is proper corporate governance and a board that is accountable to its members ? and I openly and honestly believe that is not the case at the moment. I believe ? very strongly ? that this board has violated the principles of bottom up approach (Why has an SGMM not been called to solve the quorum problem with the AGMM?) ? I believe that this board has failed on multiple counts as regards transparency ? both since I left the board and while I was on it ? and again ? I am more than happy to back the latter if the board gives me permission to do so ? publicly. I have absolutely no obligation to communicate via the board ? and considering my opinions on the current state of function of the board ? zero trust in the effectiveness of that approach if I were to take it. This is a member organization ? and we are meant to operate in an open and transparent manner ? part of transparency is the fact that people are free to voice their opinions ? and concerns ? openly and transparently ? without such things being repressed. Andrew From: Seun Ojedeji Date: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 22:23 To: Andrew Alston Cc: abel ELITCHA , General discussion of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Hello Andrew, Let me attempt to respond to one of your comment which I think you continue to repeat: Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 17:44 Andrew Alston wrote: ....and other than the fact that I am bound by an NDA which prevents me revealing so many things I would love to talk about ? SO: As one who served with you on the Board, and while I acknowledge that there is always room for improvement on Board operations, I encourage you to stop giving an impression that there are highly bad things on the Board that NDA has prevented you from saying. As I have told you in the past and will repeat once again, if your goal and intention is indeed to have a better AFRINIC and if communicating that through public list may impact upon your NDA, please feel free to send them directly to the Board. Regards Andrew From: Komi Elitcha > Date: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 19:34 To: Andrew Alston >, "community-discuss at afrinic.net" > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Andrew, Could you please cross check your data next time before alarming the world? Always trying to make the organization looks bad does not serve anybody. We expect high standard from former board members... Thanks. Le 04/12/2018 ? 13:07, Andrew Alston a ?crit : That?s well interesting. Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it seems the latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the stats in the delegated file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY different from the latest file that I pulled today. I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked ones and will re-run the stats Andrew From: Frank Habicht Sent: 04 December 2018 15:55 To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Hi, see inline On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Andrew, > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: >> >> 2009: 82 >> 2010: 113 >> 2011: 109 >> 2012: 128 >> 2013: 155 >> 2014: 134 >> 2015: 151 >> 2016: 166 >> 2017: 152 >> 2018: 99 > > Thanks for sharing the statistics. I took a quick look at the > information which is published. The results were as follows: > > 2015: 152 > 2016: 165 > 2017: 152 > 2018: 162 since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l 163 [frank at fisi ~]$ >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions >> being asked. > > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what > happened. Agenda item 1: was there a drop? Frank _______________________________________________ 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 -- KE https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aalain at trstech.net Tue Dec 4 21:39:27 2018 From: aalain at trstech.net (ALAIN AINA) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 21:39:27 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <363f7177-befd-34b7-a7c6-d5c210c8e484@gmail.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> <363f7177-befd-34b7-a7c6-d5c210c8e484@gmail.com> Message-ID: <58E2F74B-8E36-417D-8358-CF4228CD43ED@trstech.net> > On 4 Dec 2018, at 19:32, Komi Elitcha wrote: > > Andrew, > > > Le 04/12/2018 ? 16:43, Andrew Alston a ?crit : >> Komi, >> >> >> Therefore ? if a link is broken or pointing at the wrong data ? these things happen ? I double checked it against a file called delegated-afrinic-latest ? downloaded yesterday on the 3rd of December ? so ? quite frankly ? it is what it is. > What does "cross-check" means according to you? I have not said "double check? Use different source: https://afrinic.net/stats/asn ?Alain > >> >> Andrew >> >> >> From: Komi Elitcha >> Date: Tuesday, 4 December 2018 at 19:34 >> To: Andrew Alston , "community-discuss at afrinic.net" >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations >> >> Andrew, >> Could you please cross check your data next time before alarming the world? Always trying to make the organization looks bad does not serve anybody. We expect high standard from former board members... >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> Le 04/12/2018 ? 13:07, Andrew Alston a ?crit : >> That?s well interesting. >> >> Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it seems the latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the stats in the delegated file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY different from the latest file that I pulled today. >> >> I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked ones and will re-run the stats >> >> Andrew >> >> >> From: Frank Habicht >> Sent: 04 December 2018 15:55 >> To: community-discuss at afrinic.net >> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations >> >> Hi, >> see inline >> >> On 04/12/2018 15:10, S Moonesamy wrote: >> > Hi Andrew, >> > At 11:24 PM 03-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> Now ? I realize this is still early December 2018 ? but we?re almost >> >> at the end of the year and unless there are a LOT of ASN?s about to be >> >> issued ? I see that AFRINIC is running at a lower ASN allocation rate >> >> across the continent than at any year since 2009: >> >> >> >> 2009: 82 >> >> 2010: 113 >> >> 2011: 109 >> >> 2012: 128 >> >> 2013: 155 >> >> 2014: 134 >> >> 2015: 151 >> >> 2016: 166 >> >> 2017: 152 >> >> 2018: 99 >> > >> > Thanks for sharing the statistics. I took a quick look at the >> > information which is published. The results were as follows: >> > >> > 2015: 152 >> > 2016: 165 >> > 2017: 152 >> > 2018: 162 >> >> since this is a democracy, I vote for 163. >> >> [frank at fisi ~]$ egrep '\|asn\|[0-9]+\|[0-9]+\|2018[0-9]{4}\|' >> delegated-afrinic-extended-20181204 | wc -l >> 163 >> [frank at fisi ~]$ >> >> >> >> >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the >> >> continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their >> >> thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not >> >> blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions >> >> being asked. >> > >> > In my opinion, if there was a drop, it would be good to understand what >> > happened. >> >> >> Agenda item 1: >> was there a drop? >> >> >> Frank >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> KE >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ > -- > KE > https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ > _______________________________________________ > 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 uffa_modey at yahoo.com Tue Dec 4 22:08:50 2018 From: uffa_modey at yahoo.com (Uffa Modey) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 22:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <80F33A40-364B-4C10-B77B-29C0A3C1F587@nftconsult.com> References: <80F33A40-364B-4C10-B77B-29C0A3C1F587@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <1113176275.1831131.1543961330529@mail.yahoo.com> +1 @ Badru An enabling, inclusive and positive environment will always lead to more productive output Regards,Uffa Modey? Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Badru Ntege wrote: _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Untitled URL: From geier at geier.ne.tz Wed Dec 5 05:13:04 2018 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 08:13:04 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <58E2F74B-8E36-417D-8358-CF4228CD43ED@trstech.net> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> <363f7177-befd-34b7-a7c6-d5c210c8e484@gmail.com> <58E2F74B-8E36-417D-8358-CF4228CD43ED@trstech.net> Message-ID: <58e09e30-0fde-c40d-21ed-854f6fe586cf@geier.ne.tz> On 05/12/2018 00:39, ALAIN AINA wrote: > Use different source: https://afrinic.net/stats/asn thanks. Frank From amelnaud at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 06:07:01 2018 From: amelnaud at gmail.com (Arnaud AMELINA) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 06:07:01 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Andrew, Why do you always react following your ego and pursuing personal interest and not community interest? When you started this palaver on last call and Sami tenure, you tried on community-discuss to use data you have not cross checked to discredit the organization performance. What is your real motive? Is this what we should expect from Liquid telecom all along ? Arnaud Le mer. 5 d?c. 2018 20:10, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > Komi, > > > > You cannot rewrite the mandate granted by the community in the minutes. > > > > Fact ? the reality is ? the community voted ? clearly ? on a 6 month > mandate ? that is indisputable fact. > > Fact ? that mandate expired > > > > What the **minutes** say does not change the reality of a video recorded > meeting. > > > > When the issue was raised ? is immaterial ? the context of the issue being > raised ? is immaterial ? fact ? is fact ? the mandate was granted ? the > mandate expired. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > *From: *Komi Elitcha > *Date: *Wednesday, 5 December 2018 at 21:30 > *To: *Andrew Alston > *Cc: *"AfriNIC RPD MList." > *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair > > > > Hello Andrew, > > > > The minutes(*) of the PPM of AFRINIC-28 was published by co-chairs as > mandated by the PDP. > > > > The cochair election sections (6.1) read: > > > > [....] > > > > "The Elections Committee asked for a show of hands for those in favor, and > those not in favor of Mark Elkins? candidature. After a show of hands, > there were 22 in favor and 56 not in favor of Mark?s candidature. > > NomCom Chair called for nominations from the floor to fill the empty PDWG > co-chair seat. > > There were suggestions that the position be filled by a temporary co-chair > until there?s another nominations process to find a replacement co-chair. > > Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair till > there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. > > Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as co-chair > till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong support to > have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as temporary > co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season." > > > > Practices at AFRINIC is that Elections are held mostly during the > community meeting coupled with AGMM. So it is not surprising to see that > the PDWG admin page(**) lists Sami as cochair with term June2016 - > June2019. > > > > This probably explains why an election process was not triggered for the > AFRINIC-29. > > > > Nobody raised an alarm when the 77 days before election day passed (15 > September 2018) and there was no nomination process.Furthermore, at the > beginning of the PPM in Hammamet, there was no objection to Sami chairing > the meeting. > > > > Making all these noises, and challenging Sami right to operate at the > meeting and moving on, just because Co-chairs made a decision one does not > like is not responsible. > > > > Decency would have required the separation of issues appropriately > handling them through other mechanisms, which would normally be more > consensual with interest in conflict resolution an in an appealing manner . > > > > > > Hope this helps > > > > > > -Komi > > > > > > > > (*) > https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 > > (**)https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#admin > > > > Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 4:52 PM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> a ?crit : > > Hi All, > > > > I want to clarify something ? to be very sure. > > > > If I am correct ? there was no election of a PDP co-chair in Tunisia. Can > someone please confirm that? Because if there was no election ? we only > have ONE chair at the moment ? and Sami?s status as a co-chair has lapsed > and he cannot adjudicate on consensus. > > > > I say this ? because in Dakar ? and for those of you that were not there, > please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY at about 13 > minutes in, Sami?s position was granted as interim only ? and only for the > following 6 months until the next PDP. > > > > So ? unless there was an election called ? and video evidence of this ? > Sami is no longer eligible to act in the position of co-chair ? since his > mandate was not granted by this community on the floor of a meeting, and as > per the legal counsel at the Dakar meeting ? any position into which Sami > entered ? was only valid until the November meeting, and the co-chair goes > on, on record on the microphone to further state that Sami was only > appointed ?Until the next PDP meeting? > > > > Sami ? on that note, thank you for your service as the interim co-chair > over the preceeding 6 months. > > > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Dec 6 07:38:29 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 07:38:29 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Arnaud, My motivation ? when I found this situation and duly acted on it ? was simple ? to gather the evidence required to prove that the process had not been followed in the passing of this policy ? the fact that while looking for other evidence to document all the objections that made this policy fail in Dakar, I came across this ? is immaterial sometimes when you are documenting evidence to form solid and legitimate groundwork for an appeal when you know for a fact that process has not been followed, you come across things that you hadn?t seen before ? that require action. If by ?Is this what we can expect from Liquid? you refer to me personally insisting on adherence to process and adherence to the bylaws ? then yes ? that is what you can expect, please remember ? in the context of the PDP ? companies typically do not take the floor ? individuals from the community do. When and if I am speaking on behalf of my employer ? I have always made this extremely clear. As for the vague insinuations about cross-checked data ? yes ? my data was wrong ? it happens and I?ve admitted that ? it happened because I relied on published data that I downloaded from a source that I believed to be trusted and didn?t verify it ? my mistake and I apologise for that ? however, that is not really relevant to the discussion at hand and is, in my opinion, you doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, conflating issues to try and discredit something legitimate. I refer to my previous email about members of this community engaging in ?whataboutism? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) ? this is case in point. Andrew From: Arnaud AMELINA Sent: 06 December 2018 09:07 To: Andrew Alston Cc: abel ELITCHA ; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy ; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair Andrew, Why do you always react following your ego and pursuing personal interest and not community interest? When you started this palaver on last call and Sami tenure, you tried on community-discuss to use data you have not cross checked to discredit the organization performance. What is your real motive? Is this what we should expect from Liquid telecom all along ? Arnaud Le mer. 5 d?c. 2018 20:10, Andrew Alston > a ?crit : Komi, You cannot rewrite the mandate granted by the community in the minutes. Fact ? the reality is ? the community voted ? clearly ? on a 6 month mandate ? that is indisputable fact. Fact ? that mandate expired What the *minutes* say does not change the reality of a video recorded meeting. When the issue was raised ? is immaterial ? the context of the issue being raised ? is immaterial ? fact ? is fact ? the mandate was granted ? the mandate expired. Andrew From: Komi Elitcha > Date: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 at 21:30 To: Andrew Alston > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair Hello Andrew, The minutes(*) of the PPM of AFRINIC-28 was published by co-chairs as mandated by the PDP. The cochair election sections (6.1) read: [....] "The Elections Committee asked for a show of hands for those in favor, and those not in favor of Mark Elkins? candidature. After a show of hands, there were 22 in favor and 56 not in favor of Mark?s candidature. NomCom Chair called for nominations from the floor to fill the empty PDWG co-chair seat. There were suggestions that the position be filled by a temporary co-chair until there?s another nominations process to find a replacement co-chair. Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair till there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as co-chair till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong support to have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as temporary co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season." Practices at AFRINIC is that Elections are held mostly during the community meeting coupled with AGMM. So it is not surprising to see that the PDWG admin page(**) lists Sami as cochair with term June2016 - June2019. This probably explains why an election process was not triggered for the AFRINIC-29. Nobody raised an alarm when the 77 days before election day passed (15 September 2018) and there was no nomination process.Furthermore, at the beginning of the PPM in Hammamet, there was no objection to Sami chairing the meeting. Making all these noises, and challenging Sami right to operate at the meeting and moving on, just because Co-chairs made a decision one does not like is not responsible. Decency would have required the separation of issues appropriately handling them through other mechanisms, which would normally be more consensual with interest in conflict resolution an in an appealing manner . Hope this helps -Komi (*) https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 (**)https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#admin Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 4:52 PM, Andrew Alston > a ?crit : Hi All, I want to clarify something ? to be very sure. If I am correct ? there was no election of a PDP co-chair in Tunisia. Can someone please confirm that? Because if there was no election ? we only have ONE chair at the moment ? and Sami?s status as a co-chair has lapsed and he cannot adjudicate on consensus. I say this ? because in Dakar ? and for those of you that were not there, please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY at about 13 minutes in, Sami?s position was granted as interim only ? and only for the following 6 months until the next PDP. So ? unless there was an election called ? and video evidence of this ? Sami is no longer eligible to act in the position of co-chair ? since his mandate was not granted by this community on the floor of a meeting, and as per the legal counsel at the Dakar meeting ? any position into which Sami entered ? was only valid until the November meeting, and the co-chair goes on, on record on the microphone to further state that Sami was only appointed ?Until the next PDP meeting? Sami ? on that note, thank you for your service as the interim co-chair over the preceeding 6 months. Andrew _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ernest at afrinic.net Thu Dec 6 08:01:43 2018 From: ernest at afrinic.net (Ernest Byaruhanga) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:01:43 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> Colleagues, Here is some background information on the matter of Sami?s term as co-chair of the Policy Development Working Group. On the 07 of June 2018, minutes of the AFRINIC28 public policy meeting were published on the AFRINIC website and shared with the co-chairs. The minutes are published at https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 The last two bullets of minute 6.1 read as follows: ---------- ? Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair till there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. ? Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as co-chair till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong support to have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as temporary co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season. ????? The above is what guided Sami (and AFRINIC) to believe that his tenure would run "until the next scheduled nominations season?, which is next year at AIS/AFRINIC30 (2019). Looking at the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY, it?s clear that the recorded minute above did not accurately reflect what was discussed. Apologies for the confusion. Regards, Ernest. > On 6 Dec 2018, at 10:38, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Arnaud, > > My motivation ? when I found this situation and duly acted on it ? was simple ? to gather the evidence required to prove that the process had not been followed in the passing of this policy ? the fact that while looking for other evidence to document all the objections that made this policy fail in Dakar, I came across this ? is immaterial sometimes when you are documenting evidence to form solid and legitimate groundwork for an appeal when you know for a fact that process has not been followed, you come across things that you hadn?t seen before ? that require action. > > If by ?Is this what we can expect from Liquid? you refer to me personally insisting on adherence to process and adherence to the bylaws ? then yes ? that is what you can expect, please remember ? in the context of the PDP ? companies typically do not take the floor ? individuals from the community do. When and if I am speaking on behalf of my employer ? I have always made this extremely clear. > > As for the vague insinuations about cross-checked data ? yes ? my data was wrong ? it happens and I?ve admitted that ? it happened because I relied on published data that I downloaded from a source that I believed to be trusted and didn?t verify it ? my mistake and I apologise for that ? however, that is not really relevant to the discussion at hand and is, in my opinion, you doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, conflating issues to try and discredit something legitimate. I refer to my previous email about members of this community engaging in ?whataboutism? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) ? this is case in point. > > Andrew > > > > From: Arnaud AMELINA > Sent: 06 December 2018 09:07 > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: abel ELITCHA ; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy ; General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair > > Andrew, > > Why do you always react following your ego and pursuing personal interest and not community interest? When you started this palaver on last call and Sami tenure, you tried on community-discuss to use data you have not cross checked to discredit the organization performance. What is your real motive? Is this what we should expect from Liquid telecom all along ? > > Arnaud > > Le mer. 5 d?c. 2018 20:10, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > Komi, > > You cannot rewrite the mandate granted by the community in the minutes. > > Fact ? the reality is ? the community voted ? clearly ? on a 6 month mandate ? that is indisputable fact. > Fact ? that mandate expired > > What the *minutes* say does not change the reality of a video recorded meeting. > > When the issue was raised ? is immaterial ? the context of the issue being raised ? is immaterial ? fact ? is fact ? the mandate was granted ? the mandate expired. > > Andrew > > > From: Komi Elitcha > Date: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 at 21:30 > To: Andrew Alston > Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair > > Hello Andrew, > > The minutes(*) of the PPM of AFRINIC-28 was published by co-chairs as mandated by the PDP. > > The cochair election sections (6.1) read: > > [....] > > "The Elections Committee asked for a show of hands for those in favor, and those not in favor of Mark Elkins? candidature. After a show of hands, there were 22 in favor and 56 not in favor of Mark?s candidature. > NomCom Chair called for nominations from the floor to fill the empty PDWG co-chair seat. > There were suggestions that the position be filled by a temporary co-chair until there?s another nominations process to find a replacement co-chair. > Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair till there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. > Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as co-chair till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong support to have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as temporary co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season." > > Practices at AFRINIC is that Elections are held mostly during the community meeting coupled with AGMM. So it is not surprising to see that the PDWG admin page(**) lists Sami as cochair with term June2016 - June2019. > > This probably explains why an election process was not triggered for the AFRINIC-29. > > Nobody raised an alarm when the 77 days before election day passed (15 September 2018) and there was no nomination process.Furthermore, at the beginning of the PPM in Hammamet, there was no objection to Sami chairing the meeting. > > Making all these noises, and challenging Sami right to operate at the meeting and moving on, just because Co-chairs made a decision one does not like is not responsible. > > Decency would have required the separation of issues appropriately handling them through other mechanisms, which would normally be more consensual with interest in conflict resolution an in an appealing manner . > > > Hope this helps > > > -Komi > > > > (*) https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 > (**)https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#admin > > Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 4:52 PM, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > Hi All, > > I want to clarify something ? to be very sure. > > If I am correct ? there was no election of a PDP co-chair in Tunisia. Can someone please confirm that? Because if there was no election ? we only have ONE chair at the moment ? and Sami?s status as a co-chair has lapsed and he cannot adjudicate on consensus. > > I say this ? because in Dakar ? and for those of you that were not there, please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY at about 13 minutes in, Sami?s position was granted as interim only ? and only for the following 6 months until the next PDP. > > So ? unless there was an election called ? and video evidence of this ? Sami is no longer eligible to act in the position of co-chair ? since his mandate was not granted by this community on the floor of a meeting, and as per the legal counsel at the Dakar meeting ? any position into which Sami entered ? was only valid until the November meeting, and the co-chair goes on, on record on the microphone to further state that Sami was only appointed ?Until the next PDP meeting? > > Sami ? on that note, thank you for your service as the interim co-chair over the preceeding 6 months. > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Thu Dec 6 09:07:54 2018 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 13:07:54 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: [rpd] Can the Board and the CEO please get in sync? References: <5A943899-E9D4-4858-92EC-D200DAB617B6@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <4F0BCFC7-E2E2-4BB1-A0D5-3B302E598B6E@afrinic.net> Dear community, I am forwarding a message from the rpd list, as was requested. Alan Barrett Begin forwarded message: From: Alan Barrett Subject: Re: [rpd] Can the Board and the CEO please get in sync? Date: 6 December 2018 at 13:05:38 +0400 To: rpd List Dear community, > On 6 Dec 2018, at 03:37, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I?ve quoted two messages below which appear to contradict each other. One from SM (Board Member) stating that there is not yet a last call on the proposal in question. The other from the CEO stating that the last call decision was made public at the meeting and the 2 week clock for appeal started at that point. The decision to send the audit proposal to last call was made public on Thursday 29 November 2018, but the last call has not started. The start of the last call is typically announced by the co-chairs several days after the meeting, and we are now in the gap between the decision to go to last call, and the beginning of the last call. The earlier message from the CEO focused on the date of the decision; the earlier message from SM focused on the fact that the last call has not yet started. I think that both messages were accurate, but I can see how it may be confusing. > These two positions appear to contradict each other, is I ask that the CEO and the board confer and that the board respond with a single clear statement as to the situation. Such statement should include: > > 1. Is there a last call now active on this proposal or not? The co-chairs made a decision to declare rough consensus in a public policy meeting, and to send the review proposal to last call. The last call itself has not yet started; it will start only after a separate announcement by the co-chairs, and that has not yet happened. > 2. When did the 2 week clock on the ability to appeal start ticking? If the appeal will be against the decision to declare rough consensus in the meeting on 29 November, then the clock started on 29 November 2018. If the appeal will be against some other decision, then the clock starts on the date of that other decision. > 3. In light of the amount of confusion around this issue and the delays in getting clarification, could we > please reset the 2 week clock to start no sooner than the day that this clarification is provided to > the community? That?s not my call. > Further, since the two quotations come from two different lists, I request that the clarification be sent to both lists. > > Thanks for your attention to this matter, > > Owen That?s rpd and members-discuss. OK, I?ll send to both lists. Alan Barrett [quoted messages appended for context] > We have this quote on the members list from a board member: > >> From: S Moonesamy >> Date: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 at 22:02 >> To: Andrew Alston , "members-discuss at afrinic.net" >> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] PDP Co-Chair Elections >> >> Dear Andrew, >> >> My response to your question is that there was an election for the >> position of PDP Chair in Dakar. I read the messages on the relevant >> mailing list sent over the last week. There are messages about >> "opposing the last call" [1] on one of the proposals under >> discussion; there isn't any Last Call at the moment. >> >> If a Resource Member has a concern about a proposal, the Resource >> Member can raise it through its representative during a Last >> Call. There is also an appeal process for disagreements about >> actions taken by the Chair(s). From what I understand, a concern >> might be about what is written in a proposal instead of the person(s) >> taking the decision. >> >> Regards, >> S. Moonesamy >> >> 1. https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008653.html > > We have this quote from the RPD list from the CEO: > >> From: Alan Barrett >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Query on appeal >> Date: December 5, 2018 at 05:21:06 PST >> To: rpd List >> Cc: "pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net" >> >> >> On 1 Dec 2018, at 14:04, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> Hi PDWG Appeal Committee. >> >> I am replying because I think that the Appeal Committee may consider the questions out of scope for them. >> >> The policy actually says ? within 2 weeks from public knowledge of the decision ? does a pronouncement on the floor constitute public knowledge in a streamed meeting? >> >> Yes, the announcement on the floor of the public meeting was the instant that the decision became public knowledge. >> >> Secondly ? I wish the PDWG Appeal committee to comment on what happens to a last call process if the decision to last call is under appeal pending adjudication. I would assume that the last call process would be suspended and cannot proceed until the adjudication of the appeal has been completed, but I wish to have a formal clarification on this. >> >> According to AFRINIC?s legal advisor, an appeal would have the effect of suspending the last call process whilst awaiting the decision of the appeal committee on the issue of whether the Co-chairs were right or wrong. >> >> >> Alan Barrett >> CEO, AFRINIC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 09:39:53 2018 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 10:39:53 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Greetings, This should resolve the issues around the legitimacy of an hard-working volunteer, for the job no one else wants to do, so that the community can move on. Moving on, is without prejudice to the rights and intention of other parties to appeal or not appeal if and when the last call is made by the legitimate callers - the Co-Chairs. Apologies for the cross-posting. Kind Regards .. R.SF. On 06/12/2018 09:01, Ernest Byaruhanga wrote: > Colleagues, > > Here is some background information on the matter of Sami?s term as co-chair of the Policy Development Working Group. > > On the 07 of June 2018, minutes of the AFRINIC28 public policy meeting were published on the AFRINIC website and shared with the co-chairs. > > The minutes are published at > https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 > > The last two bullets of minute 6.1 read as follows: > > ---------- > ? Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair till there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. > ? Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as co-chair till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong support to have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as temporary co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season. > ????? > > The above is what guided Sami (and AFRINIC) to believe that his tenure would run "until the next scheduled nominations season?, which is next year at AIS/AFRINIC30 (2019). > > Looking at the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY, it?s clear that the recorded minute above did not accurately reflect what was discussed. > > Apologies for the confusion. > > Regards, > Ernest. > > >> On 6 Dec 2018, at 10:38, Andrew Alston wrote: >> >> Arnaud, >> >> My motivation ? when I found this situation and duly acted on it ? was simple ? to gather the evidence required to prove that the process had not been followed in the passing of this policy ? the fact that while looking for other evidence to document all the objections that made this policy fail in Dakar, I came across this ? is immaterial sometimes when you are documenting evidence to form solid and legitimate groundwork for an appeal when you know for a fact that process has not been followed, you come across things that you hadn?t seen before ? that require action. >> >> If by ?Is this what we can expect from Liquid? you refer to me personally insisting on adherence to process and adherence to the bylaws ? then yes ? that is what you can expect, please remember ? in the context of the PDP ? companies typically do not take the floor ? individuals from the community do. When and if I am speaking on behalf of my employer ? I have always made this extremely clear. >> >> As for the vague insinuations about cross-checked data ? yes ? my data was wrong ? it happens and I?ve admitted that ? it happened because I relied on published data that I downloaded from a source that I believed to be trusted and didn?t verify it ? my mistake and I apologise for that ? however, that is not really relevant to the discussion at hand and is, in my opinion, you doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, conflating issues to try and discredit something legitimate. I refer to my previous email about members of this community engaging in ?whataboutism? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) ? this is case in point. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> >> From: Arnaud AMELINA >> Sent: 06 December 2018 09:07 >> To: Andrew Alston >> Cc: abel ELITCHA ; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy ; General Discussions of AFRINIC >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair >> >> Andrew, >> >> Why do you always react following your ego and pursuing personal interest and not community interest? When you started this palaver on last call and Sami tenure, you tried on community-discuss to use data you have not cross checked to discredit the organization performance. What is your real motive? Is this what we should expect from Liquid telecom all along ? >> >> Arnaud >> >> Le mer. 5 d?c. 2018 20:10, Andrew Alston a ?crit : >> Komi, >> >> You cannot rewrite the mandate granted by the community in the minutes. >> >> Fact ? the reality is ? the community voted ? clearly ? on a 6 month mandate ? that is indisputable fact. >> Fact ? that mandate expired >> >> What the *minutes* say does not change the reality of a video recorded meeting. >> >> When the issue was raised ? is immaterial ? the context of the issue being raised ? is immaterial ? fact ? is fact ? the mandate was granted ? the mandate expired. >> >> Andrew >> >> >> From: Komi Elitcha >> Date: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 at 21:30 >> To: Andrew Alston >> Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair >> >> Hello Andrew, >> >> The minutes(*) of the PPM of AFRINIC-28 was published by co-chairs as mandated by the PDP. >> >> The cochair election sections (6.1) read: >> >> [....] >> >> "The Elections Committee asked for a show of hands for those in favor, and those not in favor of Mark Elkins? candidature. After a show of hands, there were 22 in favor and 56 not in favor of Mark?s candidature. >> NomCom Chair called for nominations from the floor to fill the empty PDWG co-chair seat. >> There were suggestions that the position be filled by a temporary co-chair until there?s another nominations process to find a replacement co-chair. >> Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair till there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. >> Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as co-chair till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong support to have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as temporary co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season." >> >> Practices at AFRINIC is that Elections are held mostly during the community meeting coupled with AGMM. So it is not surprising to see that the PDWG admin page(**) lists Sami as cochair with term June2016 - June2019. >> >> This probably explains why an election process was not triggered for the AFRINIC-29. >> >> Nobody raised an alarm when the 77 days before election day passed (15 September 2018) and there was no nomination process.Furthermore, at the beginning of the PPM in Hammamet, there was no objection to Sami chairing the meeting. >> >> Making all these noises, and challenging Sami right to operate at the meeting and moving on, just because Co-chairs made a decision one does not like is not responsible. >> >> Decency would have required the separation of issues appropriately handling them through other mechanisms, which would normally be more consensual with interest in conflict resolution an in an appealing manner . >> >> >> Hope this helps >> >> >> -Komi >> >> >> >> (*) https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 >> (**)https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#admin >> >> Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 4:52 PM, Andrew Alston a ?crit : >> Hi All, >> >> I want to clarify something ? to be very sure. >> >> If I am correct ? there was no election of a PDP co-chair in Tunisia. Can someone please confirm that? Because if there was no election ? we only have ONE chair at the moment ? and Sami?s status as a co-chair has lapsed and he cannot adjudicate on consensus. >> >> I say this ? because in Dakar ? and for those of you that were not there, please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY at about 13 minutes in, Sami?s position was granted as interim only ? and only for the following 6 months until the next PDP. >> >> So ? unless there was an election called ? and video evidence of this ? Sami is no longer eligible to act in the position of co-chair ? since his mandate was not granted by this community on the floor of a meeting, and as per the legal counsel at the Dakar meeting ? any position into which Sami entered ? was only valid until the November meeting, and the co-chair goes on, on record on the microphone to further state that Sami was only appointed ?Until the next PDP meeting? >> >> Sami ? on that note, thank you for your service as the interim co-chair over the preceeding 6 months. >> >> Andrew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RPD mailing list >> RPD at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> RPD mailing list >> RPD at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> RPD mailing list >> RPD at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 --------------------------------------------------- From dabu.sifiso at yandex.com Thu Dec 6 09:47:14 2018 From: dabu.sifiso at yandex.com (Dabu Sifiso) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 03:47:14 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <24245041544089634@sas1-46c84f197234.qloud-c.yandex.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 09:52:47 2018 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 09:52:47 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> Message-ID: I can only support this. Volunteers like Sami deserve a better treatment. Boubakar On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 9:40 AM Sunday Folayan wrote: > Greetings, > > This should resolve the issues around the legitimacy of an hard-working > volunteer, for the job no one else wants to do, so that the community > can move on. > > Moving on, is without prejudice to the rights and intention of other > parties to appeal or not appeal if and when the last call is made by the > legitimate callers - the Co-Chairs. > > Apologies for the cross-posting. > > Kind Regards .. > > R.SF. > > On 06/12/2018 09:01, Ernest Byaruhanga wrote: > > Colleagues, > > > > Here is some background information on the matter of Sami?s term as > co-chair of the Policy Development Working Group. > > > > On the 07 of June 2018, minutes of the AFRINIC28 public policy meeting > were published on the AFRINIC website and shared with the co-chairs. > > > > The minutes are published at > > https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 > > > > The last two bullets of minute 6.1 read as follows: > > > > ---------- > > ? Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair > till there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. > > ? Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as > co-chair till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong > support to have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as > temporary co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season. > > ????? > > > > The above is what guided Sami (and AFRINIC) to believe that his tenure > would run "until the next scheduled nominations season?, which is next year > at AIS/AFRINIC30 (2019). > > > > Looking at the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY, > it?s clear that the recorded minute above did not accurately reflect what > was discussed. > > > > Apologies for the confusion. > > > > Regards, > > Ernest. > > > > > >> On 6 Dec 2018, at 10:38, Andrew Alston > wrote: > >> > >> Arnaud, > >> > >> My motivation ? when I found this situation and duly acted on it ? was > simple ? to gather the evidence required to prove that the process had not > been followed in the passing of this policy ? the fact that while looking > for other evidence to document all the objections that made this policy > fail in Dakar, I came across this ? is immaterial sometimes when you are > documenting evidence to form solid and legitimate groundwork for an appeal > when you know for a fact that process has not been followed, you come > across things that you hadn?t seen before ? that require action. > >> > >> If by ?Is this what we can expect from Liquid? you refer to me > personally insisting on adherence to process and adherence to the bylaws ? > then yes ? that is what you can expect, please remember ? in the context of > the PDP ? companies typically do not take the floor ? individuals from the > community do. When and if I am speaking on behalf of my employer ? I have > always made this extremely clear. > >> > >> As for the vague insinuations about cross-checked data ? yes ? my data > was wrong ? it happens and I?ve admitted that ? it happened because I > relied on published data that I downloaded from a source that I believed to > be trusted and didn?t verify it ? my mistake and I apologise for that ? > however, that is not really relevant to the discussion at hand and is, in > my opinion, you doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, conflating > issues to try and discredit something legitimate. I refer to my previous > email about members of this community engaging in ?whataboutism? ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) ? this is case in point. > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Arnaud AMELINA > >> Sent: 06 December 2018 09:07 > >> To: Andrew Alston > >> Cc: abel ELITCHA ; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource > Policy ; General Discussions of AFRINIC < > community-discuss at afrinic.net> > >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair > >> > >> Andrew, > >> > >> Why do you always react following your ego and pursuing personal > interest and not community interest? When you started this palaver on last > call and Sami tenure, you tried on community-discuss to use data you have > not cross checked to discredit the organization performance. What is your > real motive? Is this what we should expect from Liquid telecom all along ? > >> > >> Arnaud > >> > >> Le mer. 5 d?c. 2018 20:10, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> a ?crit : > >> Komi, > >> > >> You cannot rewrite the mandate granted by the community in the minutes. > >> > >> Fact ? the reality is ? the community voted ? clearly ? on a 6 month > mandate ? that is indisputable fact. > >> Fact ? that mandate expired > >> > >> What the *minutes* say does not change the reality of a video recorded > meeting. > >> > >> When the issue was raised ? is immaterial ? the context of the issue > being raised ? is immaterial ? fact ? is fact ? the mandate was granted ? > the mandate expired. > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> > >> From: Komi Elitcha > >> Date: Wednesday, 5 December 2018 at 21:30 > >> To: Andrew Alston > >> Cc: "AfriNIC RPD MList." > >> Subject: Re: [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair > >> > >> Hello Andrew, > >> > >> The minutes(*) of the PPM of AFRINIC-28 was published by co-chairs as > mandated by the PDP. > >> > >> The cochair election sections (6.1) read: > >> > >> [....] > >> > >> "The Elections Committee asked for a show of hands for those in favor, > and those not in favor of Mark Elkins? candidature. After a show of hands, > there were 22 in favor and 56 not in favor of Mark?s candidature. > >> NomCom Chair called for nominations from the floor to fill the empty > PDWG co-chair seat. > >> There were suggestions that the position be filled by a temporary > co-chair until there?s another nominations process to find a replacement > co-chair. > >> Sami Salih (the outgoing co-chair) offered to continue as co-chair till > there is a process in future to find a new co-chair. > >> Delegates were asked if there is support for Sami to continue as > co-chair till the next scheduled nominations period. There was strong > support to have Sami continue ? and he was therefore tasked to serve as > temporary co-chair until the next scheduled nominations season." > >> > >> Practices at AFRINIC is that Elections are held mostly during the > community meeting coupled with AGMM. So it is not surprising to see that > the PDWG admin page(**) lists Sami as cochair with term June2016 - June2019. > >> > >> This probably explains why an election process was not triggered for > the AFRINIC-29. > >> > >> Nobody raised an alarm when the 77 days before election day passed (15 > September 2018) and there was no nomination process.Furthermore, at the > beginning of the PPM in Hammamet, there was no objection to Sami chairing > the meeting. > >> > >> Making all these noises, and challenging Sami right to operate at the > meeting and moving on, just because Co-chairs made a decision one does not > like is not responsible. > >> > >> Decency would have required the separation of issues appropriately > handling them through other mechanisms, which would normally be more > consensual with interest in conflict resolution an in an appealing manner . > >> > >> > >> Hope this helps > >> > >> > >> -Komi > >> > >> > >> > >> (*) > https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group/ppm-afrinic-28 > >> (**)https://www.afrinic.net/policy/development-working-group#admin > >> > >> Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 4:52 PM, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> a ?crit : > >> Hi All, > >> > >> I want to clarify something ? to be very sure. > >> > >> If I am correct ? there was no election of a PDP co-chair in Tunisia. > Can someone please confirm that? Because if there was no election ? we > only have ONE chair at the moment ? and Sami?s status as a co-chair has > lapsed and he cannot adjudicate on consensus. > >> > >> I say this ? because in Dakar ? and for those of you that were not > there, please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY at about 13 > minutes in, Sami?s position was granted as interim only ? and only for the > following 6 months until the next PDP. > >> > >> So ? unless there was an election called ? and video evidence of this ? > Sami is no longer eligible to act in the position of co-chair ? since his > mandate was not granted by this community on the floor of a meeting, and as > per the legal counsel at the Dakar meeting ? any position into which Sami > entered ? was only valid until the November meeting, and the co-chair goes > on, on record on the microphone to further state that Sami was only > appointed ?Until the next PDP meeting? > >> > >> Sami ? on that note, thank you for your service as the interim co-chair > over the preceeding 6 months. > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> RPD mailing list > >> RPD at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > >> _______________________________________________ > >> RPD mailing list > >> RPD at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > >> _______________________________________________ > >> RPD mailing list > >> RPD at afrinic.net > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- > -------------------------------------------------- > Sunday Adekunle Folayan > Managing Director > General data Engineering Services (SKANNET) > 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria > Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523 > Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com > --------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Dec 6 11:37:28 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 11:37:28 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Sunday, I need to set the record straight and ask you to retract a part of what you said below. for the job no one else wants to do This is simply not accurate ? there was a candidate ? the community chose not to accept that candidate ? but someone did want the job ? and to say otherwise is not fair to the person who put their name forward. Again apologies for the cross posting ? but since your email went to both lists ? this rebuttal must be on both. Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 13:34:13 2018 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:34:13 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <873f2410-a5e9-09e3-649c-b272b7d256b4@gmail.com> Andrew, I have been informed offlist(s) that a willing candidate was rejected by the community. I here withdraw that clause. My sincere apologies to all concerned parties. Sunday. On 06/12/2018 12:37, Andrew Alston wrote: > > Sunday, > > I need to set the record straight and ask you to retract a part of > what you said below. > > */_for the job no one else wants to do_/* > > This is simply not accurate ? there was a candidate ? the community > chose not to accept that candidate ? but someone did want the job ? > and to say otherwise is not fair to the person who put their name forward. > > Again apologies for the cross posting ? but since your email went to > both lists ? this rebuttal must be on both. > > Andrew > > > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd -- -------------------------------------------------- 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 yakmutd at googlemail.com Thu Dec 6 13:54:08 2018 From: yakmutd at googlemail.com (Daniel Yakmut) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 14:54:08 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <0A3C1F4E-4F35-4868-9B59-7C3BB48A8062@gmail.com> The ghost of Dakar is hunting us. I was baffled why we turned down a person which the process thrust at us. Then agreed to a short term measure which is now strangulating us, since we failed to do the needful. So, yes we are now faced with the legal conundrum that makes everything we did on the Policy Day Meeting at Hammammet null and void. How did we got here? --- Daniel On Dec 6, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Sunday, > > I need to set the record straight and ask you to retract a part of what you said below. > > for the job no one else wants to do > > This is simply not accurate ? there was a candidate ? the community chose not to accept that candidate ? but someone did want the job ? and to say otherwise is not fair to the person who put their name forward. > > Again apologies for the cross posting ? but since your email went to both lists ? this rebuttal must be on both. > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dndannang at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 17:20:47 2018 From: dndannang at gmail.com (DANIEL NANGHAKA) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 20:20:47 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: <0A3C1F4E-4F35-4868-9B59-7C3BB48A8062@gmail.com> References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> <0A3C1F4E-4F35-4868-9B59-7C3BB48A8062@gmail.com> Message-ID: Why can't a call be made for PDP Co-chairs? On Thursday, December 6, 2018, Daniel Yakmut via Community-Discuss < community-discuss at afrinic.net> wrote: > The ghost of Dakar is hunting us. I was baffled why we turned down a > person which the process thrust at us. Then agreed to a short term measure > which is now strangulating us, since we failed to do the needful. > > So, yes we are now faced with the legal conundrum that makes everything we > did on the Policy Day Meeting at Hammammet null and void. > > How did we got here? > > --- Daniel > > > > > On Dec 6, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Alston com> wrote: > > Sunday, > > I need to set the record straight and ask you to retract a part of what > you said below. > > *for the job no one else wants to do* > > This is simply not accurate ? there was a candidate ? the community chose > not to accept that candidate ? but someone did want the job ? and to say > otherwise is not fair to the person who put their name forward. > > Again apologies for the cross posting ? but since your email went to both > lists ? this rebuttal must be on both. > > Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > -- Nanghaka Daniel K. Executive Director - ILICIT Africa/ Chair - Outreach and Engagement WG (ICANN At-Large)/ former Chair - FOSSFA / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018 Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) Skype: daniel.nanghaka ----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * ----------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Dec 7 02:58:32 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 18:58:32 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> <0A3C1F4E-4F35-4868-9B59-7C3BB48A8062@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7BD9F481-8DD1-4394-87FA-DA228DDDCC6C@delong.com> At most it would be for one co-chair and the PDP specifies election during a PDWG meeting. Dewole?s term does not expire until some time during the next PDWG meeting. The PDP specifies that the term handoff is to be agreed by the outgoing and incoming chair. The fact that the PDP Chairs election procedure is codified in the PDP does make me wonder how the noncom and election committee came to be as involved in the process as they have been, but so long as the PDWG is amenable to that involvement, the PDP as currently written doesn?t preclude it, so I am not questioning its legitimacy, only it?s genesis. Certainly, however, we will need to elect two Chairs at the Uganda meeting in June. Anyone with an interest in running is free to express that interest at any time. Owen > On Dec 6, 2018, at 09:20 , DANIEL NANGHAKA wrote: > > Why can't a call be made for PDP Co-chairs? > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018, Daniel Yakmut via Community-Discuss > wrote: > The ghost of Dakar is hunting us. I was baffled why we turned down a person which the process thrust at us. Then agreed to a short term measure which is now strangulating us, since we failed to do the needful. > > So, yes we are now faced with the legal conundrum that makes everything we did on the Policy Day Meeting at Hammammet null and void. > > How did we got here? > > --- Daniel > > > > > On Dec 6, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: > >> Sunday, >> >> I need to set the record straight and ask you to retract a part of what you said below. >> >> for the job no one else wants to do >> >> This is simply not accurate ? there was a candidate ? the community chose not to accept that candidate ? but someone did want the job ? and to say otherwise is not fair to the person who put their name forward. >> >> Again apologies for the cross posting ? but since your email went to both lists ? this rebuttal must be on both. >> >> Andrew >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RPD mailing list >> RPD at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > > -- > Nanghaka Daniel K. > Executive Director - ILICIT Africa/ Chair - Outreach and Engagement WG (ICANN At-Large)/ former Chair - FOSSFA / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018 > Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) > Skype: daniel.nanghaka > > ----------------------------------------- "Working for Africa" ----------------------------------------- > > > > _______________________________________________ > RPD mailing list > RPD at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Dec 7 05:13:20 2018 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 09:13:20 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines References: Message-ID: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> [version fran?ais ci-dessous] [?????? ??????? ?????] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines Dear AFRINIC members and community, The AFRINIC Board has approved a new election process and guidelines, which is published at >. These are the principal changes from the previous version of the Board election process and guidelines (as adopted in 2014 with minor changes thereafter): The process is started much earlier, with the call for NomCom volunteers in October of the year before the election, instead of January of the year of the election. Additional time is allowed for some steps in the process. Most of the guidelines previously provided to NomCom by the Board (in terms of Bylaws article 9.2) are incorporated into this election process. The ?None of the above? option has been removed. Disputes shall be resolved in terms of Article 10.2 of the Bylaws. The NomCom chair is not a member of the Election Committee; that would violate Bylaws article 10?s requirement that the Election Committee be made up of staff. Proxies may be validated up to 24 hours before the election, in accordance with past practice. Electronic voting ends at the same time as voting by paper ballot ends, in accordance with past practice. Electronic voting has only three trustees, not four, in accordance with past practice. Results are announced with the full number of votes cast for each option. Regards, Alan Barrett CEO, on behalf of the AFRINIC Board of Directors -- [version fran?ais] Le conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC approuve un nouveau processus d'?lection et de nouvelles directives Chers membres d'AFRINIC et de la communaut?, Le conseil d?AFRINIC a approuv? un nouveau processus d??lection et de nouvelles directives, qui sont publi?s ? l?adresse : >. Voici les principaux changements par rapport ? la version pr?c?dente du processus d'?lection du conseil et des directives (adopt?s en 2014 avec des modifications mineures par la suite) : 1. Le processus pour l'appel ? volontaires du NomCom est lanc? plus t?t, en octobre de l'ann?e pr?c?dant les ?lections, au lieu de janvier de l'ann?e des ?lections. 2. Un d?lai suppl?mentaire est autoris? pour certaines ?tapes du processus. 3. La plupart des directives pr?c?demment fournies au NomCom par le conseil d'administration (conform?ment ? l'article 9.2 des statuts) sont int?gr?es dans ce processus d'?lection. 4. L'option ? Aucune de ces r?ponses ? a ?t? supprim?e. 5. Les diff?rends doivent ?tre r?solus conform?ment ? l'article 10.2 des statuts. 6. Le pr?sident du NomCom n'est pas membre du comit? des ?lections ; cela violerait l?article 10 des Statuts constitutifs qui exige que le Comit? d??lection soit compos? de personnel d?AFRINIC. 7. Les procurations peuvent ?tre valid?es jusqu'? 24 heures avant les ?lections, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. 8. Le vote ?lectronique se termine en m?me temps que le vote par bulletin papier, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. 9. Le vote ?lectronique ne compte que trois administrateurs, et non quatre, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. 10. Les r?sultats sont annonc?s avec le nombre total de suffrages exprim?s pour chaque option. Cordialement, Alan Barrett CEO, au nom du conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC --- [Arabic version] [?????? ??????? ?????] ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????????/ ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ????... ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????: https://afrinic.net/election-process/board/20181126 ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? (??? ??????? ?? ??? 2014 ?? ??????? ????? ???): ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????????. ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????. ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? (?? ??? ????? (9.2) ?? ??????? ?????????) ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???. ?? ????? ???? "?? ??? ??? ???". ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????? (10.2) ?? ??????? ?????????. ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? (10) ??? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????. ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? (24) ???? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????. ????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????. ??? ??????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ???????. ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????. ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Dec 7 05:50:01 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 21:50:01 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines In-Reply-To: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> References: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: While I think that some of the changes are positive and necessary, I will note the following issues: 1. This process was not submitted to the community for input prior to implementation. 2. This is being announced in December and yet calls for activities in October. Will this new process apply in Uganda, or, is this the process for the 2019 election? 3. While it is expedient, I think that removing the most popular candidate in the last election from the slate is in the same vein of contempt for the community as the refusal to table the no confidence motion in Dakar. I humbly request that the board reconsider the decision to remove ?none of the above?. As an alternative, the board should consider proposing updates to the bylaws which better address the issues of quorum and what happens when the majority of the board becomes vacant. Arguably, this could be as simple as removing the word ?elected? from the definition of quorum. Owen > On Dec 6, 2018, at 21:13 , Alan Barrett wrote: > > [version fran?ais ci-dessous] [?????? ??????? ?????] > AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines > Dear AFRINIC members and community, > > The AFRINIC Board has approved a new election process and guidelines, which is published at >. > > These are the principal changes from the previous version of the Board election process and guidelines (as adopted in 2014 with minor changes thereafter): > > The process is started much earlier, with the call for NomCom volunteers in October of the year before the election, instead of January of the year of the election. > Additional time is allowed for some steps in the process. > Most of the guidelines previously provided to NomCom by the Board (in terms of Bylaws article 9.2) are incorporated into this election process. > The ?None of the above? option has been removed. > Disputes shall be resolved in terms of Article 10.2 of the Bylaws. > The NomCom chair is not a member of the Election Committee; that would violate Bylaws article 10?s requirement that the Election Committee be made up of staff. > Proxies may be validated up to 24 hours before the election, in accordance with past practice. > Electronic voting ends at the same time as voting by paper ballot ends, in accordance with past practice. > Electronic voting has only three trustees, not four, in accordance with past practice. > Results are announced with the full number of votes cast for each option. > > Regards, > Alan Barrett > CEO, on behalf of the AFRINIC Board of Directors > > -- > [version fran?ais] > > > Le conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC approuve un nouveau processus d'?lection et de nouvelles directives > > Chers membres d'AFRINIC et de la communaut?, > > Le conseil d?AFRINIC a approuv? un nouveau processus d??lection et de nouvelles directives, qui sont publi?s ? l?adresse : >. > > Voici les principaux changements par rapport ? la version pr?c?dente du processus d'?lection du conseil et des directives (adopt?s en 2014 avec des modifications mineures par la suite) : > > 1. Le processus pour l'appel ? volontaires du NomCom est lanc? plus t?t, en octobre de l'ann?e pr?c?dant les ?lections, au lieu de janvier de l'ann?e des ?lections. > > 2. Un d?lai suppl?mentaire est autoris? pour certaines ?tapes du processus. > > 3. La plupart des directives pr?c?demment fournies au NomCom par le conseil d'administration (conform?ment ? l'article 9.2 des statuts) sont int?gr?es dans ce processus d'?lection. > > 4. L'option ? Aucune de ces r?ponses ? a ?t? supprim?e. > > 5. Les diff?rends doivent ?tre r?solus conform?ment ? l'article 10.2 des statuts. > > 6. Le pr?sident du NomCom n'est pas membre du comit? des ?lections ; cela violerait l?article 10 des Statuts constitutifs qui exige que le Comit? d??lection soit compos? de personnel d?AFRINIC. > > 7. Les procurations peuvent ?tre valid?es jusqu'? 24 heures avant les ?lections, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. > > 8. Le vote ?lectronique se termine en m?me temps que le vote par bulletin papier, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. > > 9. Le vote ?lectronique ne compte que trois administrateurs, et non quatre, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. > > 10. Les r?sultats sont annonc?s avec le nombre total de suffrages exprim?s pour chaque option. > > Cordialement, > > Alan Barrett > CEO, au nom du conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC > > --- > [Arabic version] > [?????? ??????? ?????] > > ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? > > ?????? ?????????/ ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? > > ???? ???? ????... > > ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????: > https://afrinic.net/election-process/board/20181126 > ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? (??? ??????? ?? ??? 2014 ?? ??????? ????? ???): > ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????????. > ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????. > ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? (?? ??? ????? (9.2) ?? ??????? ?????????) ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???. > ?? ????? ???? "?? ??? ??? ???". > ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????? (10.2) ?? ??????? ?????????. > ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? (10) ??? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????. > ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? (24) ???? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????. > ????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????. > ??? ??????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ???????. > ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????. > > ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ????????? > ???? ????? > ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 06:43:35 2018 From: taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com (Taiwo Oyewande) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 07:43:35 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: <7BD9F481-8DD1-4394-87FA-DA228DDDCC6C@delong.com> References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> <0A3C1F4E-4F35-4868-9B59-7C3BB48A8062@gmail.com> <7BD9F481-8DD1-4394-87FA-DA228DDDCC6C@delong.com> Message-ID: It is heart breaking to find out that the rough consensus was announced by a floor member. This means the long hours on the plane to participate in such an important process has been put to waste. How did we get to this, did we overlook the laid down processes or was this an oversight I am tempted to imply this was an intentional act. But i trust the noble men of the community will not do such to jeopardise the PDP. At this time, the way forward is obviously to void the decisions made in Tunisia. But then, what next??? > On 7 Dec 2018, at 03:58, Owen DeLong wrote: > > At most it would be for one co-chair and the PDP specifies election during a PDWG meeting. Dewole?s term does not expire until some time during the next PDWG meeting. > > The PDP specifies that the term handoff is to be agreed by the outgoing and incoming chair. > > The fact that the PDP Chairs election procedure is codified in the PDP does make me wonder how the noncom and election committee came to be as involved in the process as they have been, but so long as the PDWG is amenable to that involvement, the PDP as currently written doesn?t preclude it, so I am not questioning its legitimacy, only it?s genesis. > > Certainly, however, we will need to elect two Chairs at the Uganda meeting in June. Anyone with an interest in running is free to express that interest at any time. > > Owen > > >> On Dec 6, 2018, at 09:20 , DANIEL NANGHAKA wrote: >> >> Why can't a call be made for PDP Co-chairs? >> >>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018, Daniel Yakmut via Community-Discuss wrote: >>> The ghost of Dakar is hunting us. I was baffled why we turned down a person which the process thrust at us. Then agreed to a short term measure which is now strangulating us, since we failed to do the needful. >>> >>> So, yes we are now faced with the legal conundrum that makes everything we did on the Policy Day Meeting at Hammammet null and void. >>> >>> How did we got here? >>> >>> --- Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 6, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: >>>> >>>> Sunday, >>>> >>>> I need to set the record straight and ask you to retract a part of what you said below. >>>> >>>> for the job no one else wants to do >>>> >>>> This is simply not accurate ? there was a candidate ? the community chose not to accept that candidate ? but someone did want the job ? and to say otherwise is not fair to the person who put their name forward. >>>> >>>> Again apologies for the cross posting ? but since your email went to both lists ? this rebuttal must be on both. >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> RPD mailing list >>>> RPD at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd >>> >> >> >> -- >> Nanghaka Daniel K. >> Executive Director - ILICIT Africa/ Chair - Outreach and Engagement WG (ICANN At-Large)/ former Chair - FOSSFA / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018 >> Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) >> Skype: daniel.nanghaka >> >> ----------------------------------------- "Working for Africa" ----------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> RPD mailing list >> RPD at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Dec 7 09:12:34 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 01:12:34 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair In-Reply-To: References: <51F683FC-0C61-4A78-B650-FC2F8E194732@liquidtelecom.com> <17F7C12A-BCA4-4487-A7C7-93008CBEEF32@liquidtelecom.com> <8E7EED67-8E82-4744-AD2A-4E657621C109@afrinic.net> <0A3C1F4E-4F35-4868-9B59-7C3BB48A8062@gmail.com> <7BD9F481-8DD1-4394-87FA-DA228DDDCC6C@delong.com> Message-ID: <40B404E7-CBD0-4B02-A98E-C7DB5D2C85A2@delong.com> > On Dec 6, 2018, at 22:43 , Taiwo Oyewande wrote: > > > It is heart breaking to find out that the rough consensus was announced by a floor member. This means the long hours on the plane to participate in such an important process has been put to waste. How did we get to this, did we overlook the laid down processes or was this an oversight Sami?s status was an unfortunate oversight to the best of my knowledge. I don?t know of anyone who has stated a contrary opinion or belief. > I am tempted to imply this was an intentional act. But i trust the noble men of the community will not do such to jeopardise the PDP. Prior to making such an accusation, I think one must analyze it from the perspective of ?qui bono? ? Who benefits? The proponents of the proposal do not benefit because it calls the decision into question. The opponents do not benefit because it does little to help the opposition while creating additional uncertainty and chaos around the process. IMHO, the clear answer in this particular issue is ?nobody?. If nobody benefits, it?s unlikely to be a deliberate act. > At this time, the way forward is obviously to void the decisions made in Tunisia. Maybe yes, maybe no. IMHO, we have to ask ?is there any possibility the decision would be different if Sami hadn?t participated as a chair?? For anything where the answer is a clear no, then there?s little point to voiding the decision. Really, there?s only one controversial decision. I agree that one should be voided, but I?m not sure that Sami should be considered the primary reason to void said decision. Certainly a contributing factor, but given the strong opposition, a consensus declaration was simply out of order anyway. > But then, what next??? If the decision to declare consensus and send to last call is voided, then the proposal returns to the list. If it isn?t updated before April, it dies its much needed death. Owen > > > On 7 Dec 2018, at 03:58, Owen DeLong > wrote: > >> At most it would be for one co-chair and the PDP specifies election during a PDWG meeting. Dewole?s term does not expire until some time during the next PDWG meeting. >> >> The PDP specifies that the term handoff is to be agreed by the outgoing and incoming chair. >> >> The fact that the PDP Chairs election procedure is codified in the PDP does make me wonder how the noncom and election committee came to be as involved in the process as they have been, but so long as the PDWG is amenable to that involvement, the PDP as currently written doesn?t preclude it, so I am not questioning its legitimacy, only it?s genesis. >> >> Certainly, however, we will need to elect two Chairs at the Uganda meeting in June. Anyone with an interest in running is free to express that interest at any time. >> >> Owen >> >> >>> On Dec 6, 2018, at 09:20 , DANIEL NANGHAKA > wrote: >>> >>> Why can't a call be made for PDP Co-chairs? >>> >>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018, Daniel Yakmut via Community-Discuss > wrote: >>> The ghost of Dakar is hunting us. I was baffled why we turned down a person which the process thrust at us. Then agreed to a short term measure which is now strangulating us, since we failed to do the needful. >>> >>> So, yes we are now faced with the legal conundrum that makes everything we did on the Policy Day Meeting at Hammammet null and void. >>> >>> How did we got here? >>> >>> --- Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Dec 6, 2018, at 12:37 PM, Andrew Alston > wrote: >>> >>>> Sunday, >>>> >>>> I need to set the record straight and ask you to retract a part of what you said below. >>>> >>>> for the job no one else wants to do >>>> >>>> This is simply not accurate ? there was a candidate ? the community chose not to accept that candidate ? but someone did want the job ? and to say otherwise is not fair to the person who put their name forward. >>>> >>>> Again apologies for the cross posting ? but since your email went to both lists ? this rebuttal must be on both. >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> RPD mailing list >>>> RPD at afrinic.net >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Nanghaka Daniel K. >>> Executive Director - ILICIT Africa/ Chair - Outreach and Engagement WG (ICANN At-Large)/ former Chair - FOSSFA / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018 >>> Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) >>> Skype: daniel.nanghaka >>> >>> ----------------------------------------- "Working for Africa" ----------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> RPD mailing list >>> RPD at afrinic.net >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From comm-announce at afrinic.net Fri Dec 7 10:34:45 2018 From: comm-announce at afrinic.net (AFRINIC Communication) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:34:45 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Reminder: Extension: Volunteers for appointments by the Board to ASO AC and Governance Committee Message-ID: <06C36E40-8CEC-4486-A831-3442EBAB35A1@afrinic.net> [Version fran?ais ci dessous] Dear AFRINIC members and community, The AFRINIC Board is required to make appointments to various bodies from time to time. On 24 October 2018, the Board called for volunteers who wish to be considered for appointment by the Board. The Board is now extending the deadline for volunteers. The AFRINIC Board calls for volunteers who wish to be considered for appointment to the following bodies: ? NRO NC/ASO AC. The purpose of the NRO NC / ASO AC is to review and develop recommendations on Internet Protocol (IP) address policy and to advise the ICANN Board. For more information, see >. One of the three AFRINIC representatives in the NRO NC is appointed by the AFRINIC Board, and the Board intends to appoint one community volunteer for a one-year term, from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. ? Governance Committee. The AFRINIC Governance Committee advises the AFRINIC Board, AFRINIC Membership and the community on matters of corporate governance. For more information, see >. Two of the five voting members of the Governance Committee are appointed by the Board, and one of those seats has a term that expires on 31 December 2018. The Board intends to fill the seat by appointing a community volunteer for a two-year term from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. Volunteers are invited to send a brief biography, and their reasons for seeking appointment, to legal at afrinic.net , no later than 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2018. Existing appointees are eligible to volunteer for re-appointment. Alan Barrett On behalf of the AFRINIC Board --- [version fran?aise] Prolongement: Appel ? volontaires par le conseil d'administration ? l'ASO AC et au comit? de gouvernance. Chers membres d?AFRINIC et de la communaut?, Le conseil d'administration d?AFRINIC est tenu de proc?der de temps ? autre ? des nominations dans divers organes. Le 24 octobre 2018, le conseil a lanc? un appel ? des volontaires qui souhaitent ?tre consid?r?s pour une nomination par le conseil. Le conseil prolonge maintenant la date limite pour cet appel ? volontaires. Le conseil d?administration d?AFRINIC lance un appel aux volontaires souhaitant ?tre nomm?s aux organes suivants: ? NRO NC / ASO AC. L?objectif du NRO NC / ASO AC est d?examiner et de formuler des recommandations sur les politiques relatives ? l?allocation et la gestion des adresses IP (Internet Protocol) et de conseiller le conseil d?administration de l?ICANN. Pour plus d'informations, voir >. Un des trois repr?sentants d?AFRINIC au NRO NC est nomm? par le conseil d?administration d?AFRINIC, qui compte nommer un b?n?vole de la communaut? pour un mandat d?un an, du 1er Janvier 2019 au 31 d?cembre 2019. ? Comit? de Gouvernance. Le Comit? de Gouvernance d'AFRINIC conseille le conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC, les membres d'AFRINIC et la communaut? en mati?re de gouvernance d'entreprise. Pour plus d'informations, voir >. Deux des cinq membres votants du comit? de gouvernance sont nomm?s par le conseil d?administration et l?un de ces si?ges a un mandat expirant le 31 d?cembre 2018. Le conseil d?administration entend pourvoir ce si?ge en nommant un b?n?vole de la communaut? pour un mandat de deux ans du 1er janvier 2019 au 31 d?cembre 2020. Les volontaires sont invit?s ? envoyer une br?ve biographie et leurs motivations pour ces postes ? legal at afrinic.net , au plus tard ? 23h59 UTC le 14 d?cembre 2018. Les personnes qui occupent ces postes sont ?ligibles pour un renouvellement de mandat. Alan Barrett De la part du conseil d?administration d'AFRINIC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amreesh at afrinic.net Fri Dec 7 10:37:13 2018 From: amreesh at afrinic.net (Amreesh Phokeer) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:37:13 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? Message-ID: Dear Sami, Following our remote presentation on the Research and Innovation (R&I) Department update, you and some other delegates had some questions which I would try to answer on the list; perhaps this could spark more discussions/recommendations on the activities of AFRINIC Research. Questions from the audience at AFRINIC-29: #### What is the methodology for selecting research projects? #### We try, as much as possible, to work on research projects that will help formulate policies that can have a positive impact on the development of the Internet ecosystem in Africa. Research projects are therefore selected based on the mutual interest from AFRINIC Research partners and on potential impact it can bring. Example of a policy brief, based on a research study: #### Whether AFRINIC Research team takes feedback from the community on research needed and how does the research benefit the community with regards to issues faced by the community? #### We gather feedback based on the discussions we have during our meetings. For e.g. we presented a city-to-city latency analysis as a follow-up of the Africa Latency study at AFPIF, this year, based on requests we received on the microphone. In the future, we intend to run a survey to get more detailed feedback on the needs of the community in terms of research. The team will launch an ?Internet Measurement Awareness Survey? early next year to understand the ?Internet measurement needs" of the community. #### Is AFRINIC involved in research with regards to marketing and regulatory aspects? #### AFRINIC is definitely interested in understanding the dynamics of the ISP market and how it is influenced by the regulations in different countries. We have not done any research work on this aspect as at now, but this is a topic in which Research ICT Africa has a good expertise, we may consider collaborate with them in the future. You will find all research output from the R&I team in the last two years at this link: We also worked on a proof-of-concept of a data portal, which contains information such as IPv6 penetration, ISP market share, etc. Extending this platform is one of our main projects in 2019: World Internet Data ExplorER (WIDER) Project Hope this helps. Please send any suggestions, research ideas, etc to AFRINIC Labs Kind regards, -- Amreesh D. Phokeer R&D Manager, AFRINIC t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia @amreesh Skype: amreesh.afrinic _______________________ From comm-announce at afrinic.net Fri Dec 7 10:58:37 2018 From: comm-announce at afrinic.net (AFRINIC Communication) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 14:58:37 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Reminder: Call for expressions of interest for Board appointments Message-ID: [version fran?ais ci-dessous] Dear AFRINIC Members and community, There are currently two casual vacancies in the AFRINIC Board: Western Africa (seat 2) Eastern Africa (seat 6) The Board intends to fill the casual vacancies according to the following process. Phase 1 - Call for expressions of interest The AFRINIC Board hereby calls for expressions of interest from persons who wish to be considered for appointments to fill casual vacancies in the Board, in terms of article 13.14 of the AFRINIC Bylaws. Any appointments to these vacant seats will be for a period until the next regularly scheduled AFRINIC AGMM, in June 2019. If you would like to be considered for one of these vacant seats, please complete the form at >>, no later than 23:59 UTC on 9 January 2019. Anyone who expresses interest shall: Have at least five (5) years professional experience in an area relevant to AFRINIC activities, such as Internet Resource Management, ICT, policy development, finance, audit, or HR management; Be available and committed to participate in Board meetings and other AFRINIC activities (face-to-face and online). Candidates will be required to provide a reference of two AFRINIC resource members in good standing supporting their EOI. A member in good standing cannot support more than one candidate irrespective of the region. Candidates will be required to consent to their information being published. The following requirements from Article 13.10 of the AFRINIC bylaws will be strictly observed: 13.10. No person shall be appointed or hold office as a Director if he is a person who: (i) is under 18 years of age; (ii) is an undischarged bankrupt; (iii) would, but for the repeal of Section 117 of the Companies Act 1984 of Mauritius, be prohibited from being a Director or promoter of, or being concerned or taking part in the management of, a company within the meaning of that Act; (iv) is prohibited from being a director or promoter of or being concerned or taking part in the management of a company under Sections 337 or 338 of the Act; (v) is not a natural person; or (vi) has been adjudged to have been of unsound mind. The Board further intends to apply the guidelines from Article 13.12 of the AFRINIC Bylaws, to the extent that they consider appropriate: 13.12 [...] the following additional conditions for the eligibility of candidates to the position of Board Directors: (i) previous Board or organisational leadership experience; (ii) skills in business management and leadership; (iii) fundraising for not-for-profit organisations experience; (iv) network operations and Internet services experience; and (v) international Business development experience. Phase 2 - Public consultation The Board shall provide the opportunity to get community feedback. Those that meet the eligibility requirement as per section 13.10 of the AFRINIC bylaws, shall be identified from those who have submitted EOI. Candidates will be required to provide a reference of two AFRINIC resource members in good standing supporting their EOI. A member in good standing cannot support more than one candidate irrespective of the region. Candidates will be required to consent to their information being published. Information about candidates will be published for public comment, for a one week period. Phase 3 - Selection The Board shall proceed to select the appointees from the pool of candidates, to fill the vacant positions on the Board. The following criteria will be considered: Feedback received from the community (as per phase 1 of the process); Section 13.12 of the AFRINIC Bylaws; A vote of the Board on each region seat will be conducted; This phase shall be concluded within 1 week after the public consultation ends; The appointees will be announced to the community. Sincerely, Christian D. Bope, Ph.D Chair, AFRINIC Board of Directors --- [version fran?ais] Appel ? manifestation d?int?r?t pour les postes vacants au sein du conseil d?administration d?AFRINIC Chers membres et communaut? AFRINIC, Deux postes sont actuellement vacants au sein du conseil d?administration d?AFRINIC pour les r?gions suivantes: ? Afrique de l?Ouest (si?ge 2) ? Afrique de l'Est (si?ge 6) Le recrutement des personnes int?ress?es ? si?ger au conseil d?administration se fera selon le processus suivant. Phase 1 ? Appel ? manifestation d?int?r?t Le Conseil d?administration d'AFRINIC appelle par la pr?sente ? l'expression d'int?r?t des personnes souhaitant ?tre prises en consid?ration pour les postes vacants au sein du Conseil d?Administration, conform?ment ? l'article 13.14 des Statuts AFRINIC. Toute nomination ? ce si?ge vacant sera pour une p?riode allant jusqu'? la prochaine AGMM AFRINIC pr?vue en juin 2019. Si vous souhaitez ?tre consid?r? pour l'un de ces si?ges vacants, veuillez remplir le formulaire ? >>, au plus tard ? 23:59 UTC le 9 janvier 2019. Toute personne qui exprime un int?r?t doit : ? Avoir au moins cinq (5) ans d'exp?rience professionnelle dans un domaine pertinent aux activit?s d'AFRINIC, telles que la gestion des ressources Internet, les TIC, le d?veloppement de politiques, les finances, l'audit ou la gestion des ressources humaines; ? ?tre disponible et engag? ? participer aux r?unions du Conseil et aux autres activit?s d'AFRINIC (en face-?-face et en ligne). ? Les candidats devront fournir une preuve de r?f?rence de deux membres ressources d'AFRINIC en r?gle appuyant leur d?claration d'int?r?t. Un membre en r?gle ne peut soutenir plus d'un candidat, quelle que soit sa r?gion. ? Les candidats devront donner leur consentement pour que leurs informations soient publi?es. Les exigences suivantes de l'article 13.10 des statuts d'AFRINIC seront strictement respect?es: 13.10 Aucune personne ne doit ?tre nomm?e ou occuper un poste d'administrateur si elle est une personne qui: (i) a moins de 18 ans; (ii) est un failli non lib?r?; iii) ne serait pas, sauf pour l'abrogation de l'article 117 de la loi de 1984 sur les soci?t?s de Maurice, ?tre un administrateur ou un promoteur de la soci?t? au sens de cette loi ou y participer ou y participer; (iv) il est interdit d'?tre un administrateur ou un promoteur ou d'?tre concern? ou de prendre part ? la gestion d'une soci?t? en vertu des articles 337 ou 338 de la Loi; (v) n'est pas une personne physique; ou (vi) a ?t? jug? comme ?tant ali?n?. Le Conseil a en outre l'intention d'appliquer les directives de l'article 13.12 des statuts d'AFRINIC, dans la mesure o? elles le jugent appropri?: 13.12 [...] les conditions suppl?mentaires suivantes pour l'?ligibilit? des candidats au poste d'administrateur: (i) exp?rience ant?rieure en mati?re de direction au sein du conseil ou de l'organisation; (ii) des comp?tences en gestion d'entreprise et en leadership; (iii) la collecte de fonds pour l'exp?rience des organismes sans but lucratif; (iv) l'exploitation des r?seaux et l'exp?rience des services Internet; et (v) exp?rience du d?veloppement du commerce international. Phase 2 - Consultation Publique Le conseil d?administration donnera l?occasion aux membres de la communaut? de faire part de leurs commentaires : ? Ceux qui r?pondent aux crit?res d??ligibilit? d?finis dans la section 13.10 des statuts d?AFRINIC doivent ?tre identifi?s parmi ceux ayant soumis une d?claration d?int?r?t. ? Les candidats devront fournir une preuve de r?f?rence de deux membres ressources d'AFRINIC en r?gle appuyant leur d?claration d'int?r?t. Un membre en r?gle ne peut soutenir plus d'un candidat, quelle que soit sa r?gion. ? Les candidats devront donner leur consentement pour que leurs informations soient publi?es. ? Les informations sur les candidats seront publi?es pour consultation publique pendant une semaine. Phase 3 - S?lection Le Conseil d?administration proc?dera ? la s?lection des personnes nomm?es de la liste des candidatures re?ues, afin de pourvoir les postes vacants au conseil d?administration. Les crit?res suivants seront pris en compte : ? les commentaires re?us de la communaut? (conform?ment ? la phase 1 du processus); ? l'article 13.12 des statuts d'AFRINIC; ? un vote effectu? par le conseil d'administration pour chaque si?ge r?gional sera effectu?; ? cette phase doit ?tre achev?e dans la semaine qui suit la fin de la consultation publique; ? les personnes nomm?es seront annonc?es ? la communaut?. Cordialement, Christian D. Bope, Ph.D Pr?sident du Conseil d?Administration d'AFRINIC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Fri Dec 7 11:05:49 2018 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 15:05:49 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Call for volunteers: AFRINIC Nomination Committee (NomCom) 2019 References: <4B2856DB-3075-4DBE-8B98-82E5438A8082@afrinic.net> Message-ID: [version fran?ais ci-dessous] [?????? ??????? ?????] Call for volunteers: AFRINIC Nomination Committee (NomCom) 2019 Dear AFRINIC members and community, The AFRINIC Board is required to appoint a Nomination Committee (NomCom) every year, in terms of article 9 of the Bylaws >. On behalf of the Board, I hereby call for volunteers from the community to fill three open positions on the 2019 NomCom. If you reside in the Indian Ocean or Central Africa region, and you are interested in serving on the 2019 NomCom, then please send your expression of interest, including a short biography, by email to legal at afrinic dot net by 9 January 2019. The duties of the NomCom, and the elections to be held are described below. Election process and guidelines The current version of the Board election process and guidelines are published at >. It provides additional information about NomCom responsibilities, the election process, and timelines. This call for NomCom volunteers begins and ends later than specified in the timeline, so some other parts of the timeline will need to be adjusted to compensate. Nomcom Composition and Responsibilities: According to Section 9 of the AFRINIC by-laws, a Nominations Committee (NomCom) appointed by the Board must work to ensure that appropriate candidates are nominated to contest for open seats and that all elections are successfully conducted according to current procedures. The AFRINIC Bylaws state that NomCom must have four members, appointed by the Board. The Board?s practice is to appoint the four members as follows; - One member selected from within the AFRINIC Board; - Three members selected by the AFRINIC Board from the community. In terms of section 9.1 of the Bylaws: - No candidate for election to the Board may be a member of the NomCom; - No person domiciled in a region whose Board seat is open for renewal may be a member of the NomCom; this means that the 2019 NomCom may not include people who reside in the Northern Africa, Western Africa, Eastern Africa or Southern Africa regions. Responsibilities of the NomCom are defined in section 9 of the AFRINIC Bylaws and include the following: - Report to the Board and follow guidelines set by the Board; - Call for candidates for all open positions; - Prescribe criteria and qualifications for eligibility to stand for election; - Interview candidates, if appropriate, prior to finalising the slate of candidates; - Finalise the list of candidates for every election; - Supervise the conduct of the polls by the Election Committee on election day. The Board further expects NomCom members to: - be neutral; to have no interest in the results of the elections; - be trusted members of the AFRINIC community; - have good knowledge of the AFRINIC business environment; - do their best to fulfil their responsibilities. NomCom members do not receive any remuneration. AFRINIC staff will provide logistical support to the NomCom throughout their mandate. Such support includes publication of the list of nominees, a compilation of comments, mailing list moderation, website update, communication with nominees and other duties pertaining to the roles and responsibilities of the NomCom. Travel support will be provided for the NomCom Chair to attend the AGMM at which the elections are held. Election to be held at the AGMM in June 2019: AFRINIC Board of Directors elections: The following Board seats are up for election by the AFRINIC Membership in 2019: Seat 1 (Northern Africa), to serve a three-year term from mid-2019 to mid-2022. This seat is currently held by Habib Youssef, who was appointed by the Board in July 2018 to fill a casual vacancy. Seat 2 (Western Africa), to serve a three-year term from mid-2019 to mid-2022. This seat is currently vacant. Seat 7 (non-regional), to serve a three-year term from mid-2019 to mid-2022. This seat is currently held by Seun Ojedeji, who was elected in 2016. Seat 5 (Southern Africa), to serve a two-year term from mid-2019 to mid-2021. This seat is currently held by Vika Mpisane, who was appointed by the Board in July 2018 to fill a casual vacancy. The two-year term instead of a three-year term is needed to re-establish the sequence given in Article 13.6 of the Bylaws. Seat 6 (Eastern Africa), to serve a two-year term from mid-2019 to mid-2021. This seat is currently vacant. The two-year term instead of a three-year term is needed to re-establish the sequence given in Article 14.7(i)(b) read in conjunction with Article 13.6 of the Bylaws. Policy Development Working Group (PDWG): Two PDWG co-chair positions are up for election by the Policy Development Working Group. In order to re-establish the sequence of two-year staggered terms given in Article 3.3 of the Consolidated Policy Manual, one seat will be filled for a two-year term, and one seat will be filled for a one-year term. The seats are currently filled by Dewole Ajao and Sami Salih. Terms begin and end during the public policy meeting where the election is held. Governance Committee: One Governance Committee position is up for election by the AFRINIC Membership, to serve a three-year term from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. The seat is currently held by Isatou Jah. NRO-NC/ASO-AC: One NRO NC/ASO AC position is up for election by the AFRINIC Community, to serve a three-year term from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2022. The seat is currently held by Omo Oaiya. Policy Development Appeal Committee: This committee is appointed by the Board, at least every three years. No plans have been made for changes in 2019. How to Volunteer: If you reside in the Indian Ocean or Central Africa region, and you are interested in serving on the 2019 NomCom, then please send your expression of interest, including a short biography, by email to legal at afrinic dot net by 9 January 2019. Alan Barrett CEO, on behalf of the AFRINIC Board of Directors -- [version fran?ais] Appel ? volontaires : Comit? de nomination AFRINIC (NomCom) 2019 Chers membres d'AFRINIC et de la communaut?, Le conseil d?AFRINIC est tenu ? d?signer chaque ann?e un comit? de nomination (NomCom), conform?ment ? l?article 9 des statuts >. Au nom du conseil d?administration, j'appelle par la pr?sente des volontaires de la communaut? ? pourvoir trois postes vacants au sein du NomCom 2019. Si vous r?sidez dans la r?gion de l'oc?an Indien ou de l'Afrique centrale et que vous souhaitez faire partie du NomCom 2019, veuillez envoyer votre d?claration d'int?r?t, y compris une courte biographie, par courrier ?lectronique ? legal at afrinic dot net avant le 9 janvier 2019. Les fonctions du NomCom et les d?tails des ?lections qui seront tenues sont d?crites ci-dessous. Processus d'?lection et directives La version actuelle du processus d??lection du conseil d?administration et des directives est publi?e ? l?adresse >. Il fournit des informations suppl?mentaires sur les responsabilit?s du NomCom, le processus d'?lection et les dates phares du calendrier ?lectoral. Cet appel ? volontaires pour faire partie du comit? NomCom d?bute et se termine plus tard que la date sp?cifi?e dans le calendrier, ainsi certaines dates dans le calendrier devront ?tre ajust?es pour compenser ces changements. Composition et responsabilit?s du Nomcom : Conform?ment ? la section 9 des statuts d?AFRINIC, un comit? de nomination (NomCom) nomm? par le conseil d?administration doit veiller ? ce que des candidats appropri?s soient nomm?s pour concourir aux postes ouverts et ? ce que toutes les ?lections se d?roulent conform?ment aux proc?dures en vigueur. Les statuts d?AFRINIC stipulent que le NomCom doit ?tre compos? de quatre membres nomm?s par le Conseil d?administration. Le conseil a pour pratique de nommer les quatre membres comme suit: - Un membre choisi au sein du conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC; - Trois membres choisis par le conseil d?AFRINIC parmi la communaut?. En ce qui concerne l'article 9.1 des statuts: - Aucun candidat ? l'?lection au conseil d?administration ne peut ?tre membre du NomCom ; - Aucune personne domicili?e dans une r?gion dont le si?ge du conseil est ouvert au renouvellement ne peut ?tre membre du NomCom ; cela signifie que le NomCom 2019 pourrait ne pas inclure les personnes r?sidant les r?gions Afrique du Nord, Afrique de l'Ouest, Afrique de l'Est ou Afrique du Sud. Les responsabilit?s du NomCom sont d?finies ? la section 9 des statuts d?AFRINIC et comprennent les suivantes : - Faire rapport au conseil d'administration et suivre les directives du conseil d'administration ; - Appel ? candidatures pour tous les postes ouverts ; - Prescrire les crit?res et les qualifications permettant d??tre ?ligible ; - Interviewer les candidats, le cas ?ch?ant, avant de finaliser la liste des candidats ; - Finaliser la liste des candidats pour chaque ?lection ; - Superviser le d?roulement des scrutins par le comit? des ?lections le jour des ?lections. Le Conseil s'attend en outre ? ce que les membres du NomCom : -Soient neutres; ne pas s'int?resser aux r?sultats des ?lections ; - Sont des membres de confiance de la communaut? AFRINIC ; - Ont une bonne connaissance du milieu des affaires AFRINIC ; - Font de leur mieux pour assumer leurs responsabilit?s. Les membres du NomCom ne re?oivent aucune r?mun?ration. Le personnel d?AFRINIC apportera un soutien logistique au NomCom tout au long de son mandat. Ce soutien comprend la publication de la liste des candidatures, la compilation des commentaires, la mod?ration de la liste de diffusion, la mise ? jour du site Web, la communication avec les candidats et autres t?ches li?es aux r?les et responsabilit?s du NomCom. Un support financier sera fourni pour que le pr?sident du NomCom assiste ? l?AGMM o? se tiennent les ?lections. L'?lection aura lieu ? l'AGMM en juin 2019 ?lection du conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC Une ?lection se tiendra pour les si?ges suivants au Conseil d?administration par les membres d?AFRINIC en 2019 : ? Si?ge 1 (Afrique du Nord), pour un mandat de trois ans de mi-2019 ? mi-2022. Ce si?ge est actuellement occup? par Habib Youssef, qui a ?t? nomm? par le Conseil en juillet 2018 pour pourvoir un poste vacant. ? Si?ge 2 (Afrique de l'Ouest), pour un mandat de trois ans de mi-2019 ? mi-2022. Ce si?ge est actuellement vacant. ? Si?ge 7 (non r?gional), pour un mandat de trois ans, de mi-2019 ? mi- 2022. Ce si?ge est actuellement occup? par Seun Ojedeji, ?lu en 2016. ? Si?ge 5 (Afrique australe) pour un mandat de deux ans de mi-2019 ? mi-2021. Ce si?ge est actuellement occup? par Vika Mpisane, qui a ?t? nomm?e par le Conseil en juillet 2018 pour pourvoir un poste vacant. Un mandat de deux ans au lieu de trois ans est n?cessaire pour r?tablir l'ordre indiqu? dans l'article 13.6 des statuts. ? Si?ge 6 (Afrique de l'Est) pour un mandat de deux ans de mi- 2019 ? mi-2021. Ce si?ge est actuellement vacant. Un mandat de deux ans au lieu de trois ans est n?cessaire pour r?tablir l'ordre indiqu? ? l'article 14.7 (i) (b) lu conjointement avec l'article 13.6 des statuts. Groupe de travail sur l'?laboration de politiques (PDWG) : Deux postes de copr?sidents du PDWG doivent ?tre pourvus par le groupe de travail sur l'?laboration des politiques. Afin de r?tablir la s?quence des mandats ?chelonn?s sur deux ans d?crite dans l'article 3.3 du Guide collectif des politiques, un si?ge sera pourvu pour un mandat de deux ans et un si?ge pour un mandat d'un an. Les si?ges sont actuellement occup?s par Dewole Ajao et Sami Salih. Les mandats commencent et se terminent lors de la r?union de politique publique o? se d?roule l'?lection. Comit? de gouvernance: Les membres d'AFRINIC doivent ?lire un membre du Comit? de gouvernance, pour un mandat de trois ans du 1er janvier 2020 au 31 d?cembre 2022. Le si?ge est actuellement occup? par Isatou Jah. NRO-NC / ASO-AC: Un poste au NRO NC / ASO AC doit ?tre pourvu par la communaut? d?AFRINIC pour un mandat de trois ans du 1er janvier 2020 au 31 d?cembre 2022. Ce si?ge est actuellement occup? par Omo Oaiya. Comit? d'appel sur l'?laboration de politiques: Ce comit? est nomm? par le conseil d?administration au moins tous les trois ans. Aucun changement n'a ?t? pr?vu pour 2019. Comment participer volontairement: Si vous r?sidez dans la r?gion de l'oc?an Indien ou de l'Afrique centrale et que vous souhaitez faire partie du NomCom 2019, veuillez envoyer votre d?claration d'int?r?t, y compris une courte biographie, par courrier ?lectronique ? legal at afrinic dot net avant le 9 janvier 2019. Alan Barrett CEO, au nom du conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC --- [Arabic version] ???? ?????????: ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? (???? ???????) 2019 ?????? ?????????/ ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ????... ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? (9) ?? ??????? ????????? ??? ?????? ??????????: https://afrinic.net/bylaws#nomcom ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ????????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? 2019. ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? 2019? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????????: legal at afrinic.net ?????? 9 ????? 2019. ????? ????? ???? ???? ???????? ??????????? ???? ??????. ????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????????? https://afrinic.net/election-process/board/20181126 ? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ???????. ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???????. ????? ???? ??????? ???????????: ????? ????? 9 ?? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ????????? ??????? ??? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???? ?????????? ????? ????? ????????? ???????. ??? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????. ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???: ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????. ????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????. ??? ??? ????? 9.1 ?? ??????? ?????????: ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???????. ?? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? 2019 ??? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????. ????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? (9) ?? ??????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?? ???: ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ??????. ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ????????. ??? ???????? ????????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????????. ?????? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????????. ????? ????? ????????? ??? ??????. ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????????. ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ???: ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??????????. ????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????. ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????. ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???????????. ?? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ?????. ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ???????. ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ??? ????? ???????? ????????? ?????? ?????? ??????????? ??????? ?????????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ???????????. ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ??????????. ??? ?????????? ?? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ????? 2019: ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????: ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? 2019: ?????? 1 (?????? ????????): ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? 2019 ??? ????? ??? 2022? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? 2018 ???? ???? ???? ????. ?????? 2 (????? ????????): ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? 2019 ??? ????? ??? 2022? ??? ???? ???? ??????. ?????? 7 (??? ??????): ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? 2019 ??? ????? ??? 2022? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ??? 2016. ????? 5 (?????? ????????): ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? 2019 ??? ????? ??? 2021? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? 2018 ???? ???? ???? ????. ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? 13.6 ?? ??????? ?????????. ?????? 6 (????? ????????): ????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? 2019 ??? ????? ??? 2021? ??? ???? ???? ??????. ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? 14.7(1)(?) ???? ????? ??????? ?????? 13.6 ?? ??????? ?????????. ?????? ??? ????? ???????: ????? ?? ?????????? ????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????. ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ?? ????? 3.3 ?? ???? ???????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?????. ????? ???? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????. ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ????????. ???? ???????: ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? 1 ????? 2020 ??? 31 ?????? 2022? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???. ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???????/ ????? ??? ???????? ????? ????????: ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???????/ ????? ??? ???????? ????? ???????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? 1 ????? 2020 ??? 31 ?????? 2022? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????. ???? ???? ????? ???????: ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????. ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? 2019. ????? ??????: ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? 2019? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ??????????: legal at afrinic.net ?????? 9 ????? 2019. ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sami at tpra.gov.sd Fri Dec 7 13:15:30 2018 From: sami at tpra.gov.sd (Sami Salih) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:15:30 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> Dear Amreesh, Thank you very much for this informative reply, I really appreciate what have be do in R&D, however as ex-Head of R&D at the Telecom regulatory of my country I want to see more engagement with policy oprganizations to fill the gap in policy related research studies. I may refer back to you with some ToR. BR ---- Original Message ----- From: Amreesh Phokeer To: sami at tpra.gov.sd Cc: community-discuss at afrinic.net Sent: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 13:37:13 +0300 (EAT) Subject: How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? Dear Sami, Following our remote presentation on the Research and Innovation (R&I) Department update, you and some other delegates had some questions which I would try to answer on the list; perhaps this could spark more discussions/recommendations on the activities of AFRINIC Research. Questions from the audience at AFRINIC-29: #### What is the methodology for selecting research projects? #### We try, as much as possible, to work on research projects that will help formulate policies that can have a positive impact on the development of the Internet ecosystem in Africa. Research projects are therefore selected based on the mutual interest from AFRINIC Research partners and on potential impact it can bring. Example of a policy brief, based on a research study: #### Whether AFRINIC Research team takes feedback from the community on research needed and how does the research benefit the community with regards to issues faced by the community? #### We gather feedback based on the discussions we have during our meetings. For e.g. we presented a city-to-city latency analysis as a follow-up of the Africa Latency study at AFPIF, this year, based on requests we received on the microphone. In the future, we intend to run a survey to get more detailed feedback on the needs of the community in terms of research. The team will launch an ?Internet Measurement Awareness Survey? early next year to understand the ?Internet measurement needs" of the community. #### Is AFRINIC involved in research with regards to marketing and regulatory aspects? #### AFRINIC is definitely interested in understanding the dynamics of the ISP market and how it is influenced by the regulations in different countries. We have not done any research work on this aspect as at now, but this is a topic in which Research ICT Africa has a good expertise, we may consider collaborate with them in the future. You will find all research output from the R&I team in the last two years at this link: We also worked on a proof-of-concept of a data portal, which contains information such as IPv6 penetration, ISP market share, etc. Extending this platform is one of our main projects in 2019: World Internet Data ExplorER (WIDER) Project Hope this helps. Please send any suggestions, research ideas, etc to AFRINIC Labs Kind regards, -- Amreesh D. Phokeer R&D Manager, AFRINIC t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: www.afrinic.net facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia @amreesh Skype: amreesh.afrinic _______________________ -- Dr. Sami Salih | Assistant Professor Sudan University of Science and Technology Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407 email: sami.salih at sustech.edu Mob: +249122045707 From sami at tpra.gov.sd Fri Dec 7 14:00:09 2018 From: sami at tpra.gov.sd (Sami Salih) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 17:00:09 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines In-Reply-To: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> References: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1108465741.1135687.1544191209924.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> So exited to see my language in AFRINIC official announcement, this will definitely encourage more people to positivly contribute. Thank you Alan. ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Barrett To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Sent: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 08:13:20 +0300 (EAT) Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines [version fran?ais ci-dessous] [?????? ??????? ?????] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines Dear AFRINIC members and community, The AFRINIC Board has approved a new election process and guidelines, which is published at >. These are the principal changes from the previous version of the Board election process and guidelines (as adopted in 2014 with minor changes thereafter): The process is started much earlier, with the call for NomCom volunteers in October of the year before the election, instead of January of the year of the election. Additional time is allowed for some steps in the process. Most of the guidelines previously provided to NomCom by the Board (in terms of Bylaws article 9.2) are incorporated into this election process. The ?None of the above? option has been removed. Disputes shall be resolved in terms of Article 10.2 of the Bylaws. The NomCom chair is not a member of the Election Committee; that would violate Bylaws article 10?s requirement that the Election Committee be made up of staff. Proxies may be validated up to 24 hours before the election, in accordance with past practice. Electronic voting ends at the same time as voting by paper ballot ends, in accordance with past practice. Electronic voting has only three trustees, not four, in accordance with past practice. Results are announced with the full number of votes cast for each option. Regards, Alan Barrett CEO, on behalf of the AFRINIC Board of Directors -- [version fran?ais] Le conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC approuve un nouveau processus d'?lection et de nouvelles directives Chers membres d'AFRINIC et de la communaut?, Le conseil d?AFRINIC a approuv? un nouveau processus d??lection et de nouvelles directives, qui sont publi?s ? l?adresse : >. Voici les principaux changements par rapport ? la version pr?c?dente du processus d'?lection du conseil et des directives (adopt?s en 2014 avec des modifications mineures par la suite) : 1. Le processus pour l'appel ? volontaires du NomCom est lanc? plus t?t, en octobre de l'ann?e pr?c?dant les ?lections, au lieu de janvier de l'ann?e des ?lections. 2. Un d?lai suppl?mentaire est autoris? pour certaines ?tapes du processus. 3. La plupart des directives pr?c?demment fournies au NomCom par le conseil d'administration (conform?ment ? l'article 9.2 des statuts) sont int?gr?es dans ce processus d'?lection. 4. L'option ? Aucune de ces r?ponses ? a ?t? supprim?e. 5. Les diff?rends doivent ?tre r?solus conform?ment ? l'article 10.2 des statuts. 6. Le pr?sident du NomCom n'est pas membre du comit? des ?lections ; cela violerait l?article 10 des Statuts constitutifs qui exige que le Comit? d??lection soit compos? de personnel d?AFRINIC. 7. Les procurations peuvent ?tre valid?es jusqu'? 24 heures avant les ?lections, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. 8. Le vote ?lectronique se termine en m?me temps que le vote par bulletin papier, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. 9. Le vote ?lectronique ne compte que trois administrateurs, et non quatre, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. 10. Les r?sultats sont annonc?s avec le nombre total de suffrages exprim?s pour chaque option. Cordialement, Alan Barrett CEO, au nom du conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC --- [Arabic version] [?????? ??????? ?????] ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????????/ ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? ???? ???? ????... ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????: https://afrinic.net/election-process/board/20181126 ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? (??? ??????? ?? ??? 2014 ?? ??????? ????? ???): ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????????. ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????. ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? (?? ??? ????? (9.2) ?? ??????? ?????????) ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???. ?? ????? ???? "?? ??? ??? ???". ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????? (10.2) ?? ??????? ?????????. ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? (10) ??? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????. ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? (24) ???? ?? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????. ????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ????????? ???????. ??? ??????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ???????. ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????. ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? -- Dr. Sami Salih | Assistant Professor Sudan University of Science and Technology Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407 email: sami.salih at sustech.edu Mob: +249122045707 From wdelnour at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 14:36:23 2018 From: wdelnour at gmail.com (MoH E HaFez) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:36:23 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines In-Reply-To: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> References: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: It is nice to see Arabic language. That would help for more and better contribution. On Fri, Dec 7, 2018, 7:15 AM Alan Barrett wrote: > [version fran?ais ci-dessous] [?????? ??????? ?????] > AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines > Dear AFRINIC members and community, > > The AFRINIC Board has approved a new election process and guidelines, > which is published at >. > > These are the principal changes from the previous version of the Board > election process and guidelines (as adopted in 2014 with minor changes > thereafter): > > > 1. The process is started much earlier, with the call for NomCom > volunteers in October of the year before the election, instead of January > of the year of the election. > 2. Additional time is allowed for some steps in the process. > 3. Most of the guidelines previously provided to NomCom by the Board > (in terms of Bylaws article 9.2) are incorporated into this election > process. > 4. The ?None of the above? option has been removed. > 5. Disputes shall be resolved in terms of Article 10.2 of the Bylaws. > 6. The NomCom chair is not a member of the Election Committee; that > would violate Bylaws article 10?s requirement that the Election Committee > be made up of staff. > 7. Proxies may be validated up to 24 hours before the election, in > accordance with past practice. > 8. Electronic voting ends at the same time as voting by paper ballot > ends, in accordance with past practice. > 9. Electronic voting has only three trustees, not four, in accordance > with past practice. > 10. Results are announced with the full number of votes cast for each > option. > > > Regards, > Alan Barrett > CEO, on behalf of the AFRINIC Board of Directors > > -- > [version fran?ais] > > > Le conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC approuve un nouveau processus > d'?lection et de nouvelles directives > > Chers membres d'AFRINIC et de la communaut?, > > Le conseil d?AFRINIC a approuv? un nouveau processus d??lection et de > nouvelles directives, qui sont publi?s ? l?adresse : < > https://afrinic.net/election-process/board/20181126>. > > Voici les principaux changements par rapport ? la version pr?c?dente du > processus d'?lection du conseil et des directives (adopt?s en 2014 avec des > modifications mineures par la suite) : > > 1. Le processus pour l'appel ? volontaires du NomCom est lanc? plus t?t, > en octobre de l'ann?e pr?c?dant les ?lections, au lieu de janvier de > l'ann?e des ?lections. > > 2. Un d?lai suppl?mentaire est autoris? pour certaines ?tapes du processus. > > 3. La plupart des directives pr?c?demment fournies au NomCom par le > conseil d'administration (conform?ment ? l'article 9.2 des statuts) sont > int?gr?es dans ce processus d'?lection. > > 4. L'option ? Aucune de ces r?ponses ? a ?t? supprim?e. > > 5. Les diff?rends doivent ?tre r?solus conform?ment ? l'article 10.2 des > statuts. > > 6. Le pr?sident du NomCom n'est pas membre du comit? des ?lections ; cela > violerait l?article 10 des Statuts constitutifs qui exige que le Comit? > d??lection soit compos? de personnel d?AFRINIC. > > 7. Les procurations peuvent ?tre valid?es jusqu'? 24 heures avant les > ?lections, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. > > 8. Le vote ?lectronique se termine en m?me temps que le vote par bulletin > papier, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. > > 9. Le vote ?lectronique ne compte que trois administrateurs, et non > quatre, conform?ment aux pratiques ant?rieures. > > 10. Les r?sultats sont annonc?s avec le nombre total de suffrages exprim?s > pour chaque option. > > Cordialement, > > Alan Barrett > CEO, au nom du conseil d'administration d'AFRINIC > > --- > [Arabic version] > [?????? ??????? ?????] > > ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? > > ?????? ?????????/ ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???????? > > ???? ???? ????... > > ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ????? > ?????? ??? ?????? ??????????? ????? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????: > https://afrinic.net/election-process/board/20181126 > ????? ??? ????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? > ???????? ????????? ???? (??? ??????? ?? ??? 2014 ?? ??????? ????? ???): > > 1. ???? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? > ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????????. > 2. ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ???????. > 3. ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? (?? > ??? ????? (9.2) ?? ??????? ?????????) ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???. > 4. ?? ????? ???? "?? ??? ??? ???". > 5. ???? ???????? ?? ??? ????? (10.2) ?? ??????? ?????????. > 6. ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ????? > ???? ????? (10) ??? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?????. > 7. ???? ?????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? (24) ???? ?? ???????? ????? > ????????? ???????. > 8. ????? ??????? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??????? > ???????? ????? ????????? ???????. > 9. ??? ??????? ?????????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? > ???????. > 10. ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ????. > > > ??????? ????? ???? ???????? ????????? > ???? ????? > ?????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Dec 7 16:57:33 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 16:57:33 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC Board approves new election process and guidelines In-Reply-To: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> References: <52EC5D78-8223-4FE7-91BD-593175B7B2F3@afrinic.net> Message-ID: 1. The 2. ?None of the above? option has been removed. 1. So the board refuses to put to the floor a vote of no confidence in themselves ? Then ? the board refuses to call an SGMM to fix the quorum problems that resulted from members rejecting them because of their own actions ? now ? the board removes the right of the community to say NO to people they don?t want on their board ? the board of a ?community driven bottom up organization? ? or should I say ?an organization run by those who believe that power once given should never be relinquished? Wow ? and we wonder why the world looks at Africa and Afrinic the way it does ? when we make such mockery out of democratic process, deny the will of the members who fund the organization, and modify the rules to save our own skins. * I say ? Cry the beloved continent Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Sat Dec 8 08:13:00 2018 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2018 12:13:00 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <7729BFA0-4C66-43D1-887A-2BEF36114025@afrinic.net> > On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:07, Andrew Alston wrote: > > That?s well interesting. > > Yesterday ? I pulled the afrinic-delegated-latest file ? and it seems the latest link wasn?t updated or something, because the stats in the delegated file that I pulled yesterday ? were VERY different from the latest file that I pulled today. > > I?m pulling all the actual dated files now rather than the linked ones and will re-run the stats Dear Andrew, AFRINIC has found no indication of a problem with publishing the stats files in recent days. We have checked several recent files from http://ftp.afrinic.net/stats/afrinic/2018/, and see the following numbers of ASN allocations: ~ grep -E "asn.*1.*2018" delegated-afrinic-20181201 | wc -l 162 ~ grep -E "asn.*1.*2018" delegated-afrinic-20181202 | wc -l 162 ~ grep -E "asn.*1.*2018" delegated-afrinic-20181203 | wc -l 162 ~ grep -E "asn.*1.*2018" delegated-afrinic-20181204 | wc -l 163 The delegated-afrinic-latest file is a link to one of the numbered files, and the link is updated only after the new file has been put into place. Regards, Alan Barrett From virtual.borg at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 08:03:20 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 12:03:20 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: <5A998DBA-8B49-4BAF-9A4C-45909CCD7172@liquidtelecom.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> <5A998DBA-8B49-4BAF-9A4C-45909CCD7172@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 23:37, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > Seun, > > > > Firstly ? my beliefs on the board process and the workings of the board > are mine ? and my opinions are my opinions ? and there is nothing that > stops me stating that in my **opinion** things are **deeply** flawed ? > and that I am prohibited from clarifying WHY I hope those opinions. The > counter argument to what you say is simple ? if things ARENT problematic ? > then waiver the NDA ? you should have nothing to hide. > Dear AFRINIC board So long as ex-member of board keep insisting there is something wrong, this community (or part of it) will not trust you. That is not good for this community, or to AFRINIC. Maybe you really should suspend NDA for Andrew so we can clear this up. At least even if he don't send his concern to community, suspend NDA so he may raise concern to gouvenance committee and or council of elder. -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 08:09:24 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 12:09:24 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 11:26, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > > > > As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the continent, > I really think it would be good to understand what their thoughts on this > are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not blaming AFRINIC for the > drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions being asked. > Even though your stat have been prove to be wrong. As former board member and current operator, you should know that many small ISP in Africa do not meet the "multi-homing" criteria. So there is natural limit to potential number of ASN. I have also meet many small ISP operator who have problem getting simple BGP with big operator. Maybe a skill problem for AFRINIC training team and AFNOG to address? -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Sun Dec 9 08:25:19 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 08:25:19 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: The concern here is not about ISPs getting asns - it is deeper than that. In order for the internet environment to thrive we need the potential for large scale interconnection that is predicated on companies having asns - and this includes enterprise customers across all sectors. Interconnection and free traffic exchange is critical to the growth of the internet industry and our goals of getting to a majority of content being exchanged directly on the continent. It is also critical to build the critical mass, a requirement to justify the investment in infrastructure such as data centers. Yes while my stats were proven wrong, it still deeply concerns me that when I compare our asn allocation stats to that of lacnic (the closest comparison to where afrinic and Africa is out of the other RIRs - you find that our ASN allocation rate year by year for many years is essentially flat - we hit 150 to 160 allocated every year - but there is no compounded growth that you see in LACNIC where they are allocation well over a thousand asns a year and the allocation numbers have been growing each year. It is also a concern to me that of the roughly 1600 asns allocated - of those less than 1200 are visible in the DFZ. Andrew Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy ________________________________ From: Chevalier du Borg Sent: Sunday, December 9, 2018 09:08 To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 11:26, Andrew Alston > a ?crit : As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the continent, I really think it would be good to understand what their thoughts on this are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not blaming AFRINIC for the drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions being asked. Even though your stat have been prove to be wrong. As former board member and current operator, you should know that many small ISP in Africa do not meet the "multi-homing" criteria. So there is natural limit to potential number of ASN. I have also meet many small ISP operator who have problem getting simple BGP with big operator. Maybe a skill problem for AFRINIC training team and AFNOG to address? -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sm+af at afrinic.net Sun Dec 9 12:17:34 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2018 04:17:34 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181209011734.0b85fce0@elandnews.com> Dear Andrew, At 12:25 AM 09-12-2018, Andrew Alston wrote: >In order for the internet environment to thrive we need the >potential for large scale interconnection that is predicated on >companies having asns - and this includes enterprise customers >across all sectors. > >Interconnection and free traffic exchange is critical to the growth >of the internet industry and our goals of getting to a majority of >content being exchanged directly on the continent. It is also >critical to build the critical mass, a requirement to justify the >investment in infrastructure such as data centers. > >Yes while my stats were proven wrong, it still deeply concerns me >that when I compare our asn allocation stats to that of lacnic (the >closest comparison to where afrinic and Africa is out of the other >RIRs - you find that our ASN allocation rate year by year for many >years is essentially flat - we hit 150 to 160 allocated every year - >but there is no compounded growth that you see in LACNIC where they >are allocation well over a thousand asns a year and the allocation >numbers have been growing each year. > >It is also a concern to me that of the roughly 1600 asns allocated - >of those less than 1200 are visible in the DFZ. Intra-regional traffic, with some exceptions, is relatively low. As mentioned above, it makes it difficult to justify the investment in infrastructure if there isn't a demand. I doubt that there would be significant traffic if there is investment to build infrastructure, e.g. a data center, as it requires more than that for an ecosystem to flourish. One of the objectives of an (expired) IPv4 proposal was to review the existing policy and assess whether it might have a negative impact on the growth of networks in the service region. It is too late to do anything about that as the service region has entered the IPv4 exhaustion phase. As at 30 September, there were 1,705 ASNs assigned by Afrinic and 8,698 ASNs assigned by Lacnic. As at 8 December, there were 1,228 (Afrinic-assigned) ASNs and 7,454 (Lacnic-assigned) ASNs visible [1]. The yearly rate has not change significantly since 2012. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. I did not verify the figures. From mangawilly at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 17:29:26 2018 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2018 18:29:26 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b81d92b-880b-b6c7-f144-1949d7ebf4da@gmail.com> Hi, Le 09/12/2018 ? 09:09, Chevalier du Borg a ?crit?: > [...]> I have also meet many small ISP operator who have problem getting simple > BGP with big operator. Maybe a skill problem for AFRINIC training team and > AFNOG to address? In addition (small) enterprise customers and universities at least in my area think that when you buy an access to the internet for all your offices, it's enough. They don't even know they can request their own resources: IP addresses and further in some cases ASN. Even when they are aware, they think these resources is a matter of ISP only. They don't realise they can peer with other networks they use to work on a daily basis (through exchange points). Last issue is regulators and governments who sometimes don't encourage enough actors to have their own resources. Check vizAS [1] ; charts speak for themselves especially for many african countries. 1. http://labs.apnic.net/vizas/index.html -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Mon Dec 10 04:44:56 2018 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 07:44:56 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> <5A998DBA-8B49-4BAF-9A4C-45909CCD7172@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <83A3A80B-C9A0-4FE0-9034-7018258F9ED1@nftconsult.com> From: Chevalier du Borg Date: Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 11:06 AM To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 23:37, Andrew Alston a ?crit : Seun, Firstly ? my beliefs on the board process and the workings of the board are mine ? and my opinions are my opinions ? and there is nothing that stops me stating that in my *opinion* things are *deeply* flawed ? and that I am prohibited from clarifying WHY I hope those opinions. The counter argument to what you say is simple ? if things ARENT problematic ? then waiver the NDA ? you should have nothing to hide. Dear AFRINIC board So long as ex-member of board keep insisting there is something wrong, this community (or part of it) will not trust you. That is not good for this community, or to AFRINIC. Maybe you really should suspend NDA for Andrew so we can clear this up. Lets not forget NDA was Andrews baby and he used quite successfully alongside the Mauritian law to get away with a number of misdeamenors during his time on board. I obviously can?t say more since its protected by the NDA ? At least even if he don't send his concern to community, suspend NDA so he may raise concern to gouvenance committee and or council of elder. -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" _______________________________________________ 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 sfolayan at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 04:56:14 2018 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 05:56:14 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181204032654.0d3c1210@elandnews.com> <2fb117e9-b2c8-9fe8-dde0-145b322a724f@geier.ne.tz> <76671325-08fa-3b60-3d60-caf895c251a1@gmail.com> <5A998DBA-8B49-4BAF-9A4C-45909CCD7172@liquidtelecom.com> Message-ID: <8c1d2686-29cc-545f-3bf5-f66bdfa0d9b0@gmail.com> The COE, GC and Board are all bound by the same NDA. It is wrong to say that the NDA is the sword of Damocles dangling on Andrew, preventing him from salvaging AfriNIC from the savages on the Board. For the records, I did ask the Board for permission to bare my mind to some investigations committee in the past, and it was granted. Andrew, Please ask the Board for the permission to disclose the contents of the closet to the community,? through the GC. If the Board the refuses, then there is some basis for your veiled and sustained "Pull them down" statements. For now,? I submit that Board members are volunteers doing a job that a few are willing to do, for the fear of being maligned by veiled statements and innuendos. I stand by the fact that volunteers should not be made to look evil in any way. Maybe some volunteers have their volunteer activities well woven into their pay checks, I love to have such a job! Sunday. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018, 09:02 Chevalier du Borg wrote: Le?mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ??23:37, Andrew Alston > a ?crit?: Seun, Firstly ? my beliefs on the board process and the workings of the board are mine ? and my opinions are my opinions ? and there is nothing that stops me stating that in my **opinion** things are **deeply** flawed ? and that I am prohibited from clarifying WHY I hope those opinions.? The counter argument to what you say is simple ? if things ARENT problematic ? then waiver the NDA ? you should have nothing to hide. Dear AFRINIC board So long as ex-member of board keep insisting there is something wrong, this community (or part of it) will not trust you. That is not good for this community, or to AFRINIC. Maybe you really should suspend NDA for Andrew so we can clear this up. At least even if he don't send his concern to community,? suspend NDA so he may raise concern to gouvenance committee and or council of elder. -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" _______________________________________________ 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 virtual.borg at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 06:12:31 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:12:31 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le dim. 9 d?c. 2018 ? 12:25, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > The concern here is not about ISPs getting asns - it is deeper than that. > > In order for the internet environment to thrive we need the potential for > large scale interconnection that is predicated on companies having asns - > and this includes enterprise customers across all sectors. > I agree with you. I think the current ASN policy make that difficult I know you are not try to blame AFRINIC for this (even though it hard to see it that way because of your timing). I think it a matter of strategic importance. As a former board member, did you not realise this issue? What did you get the board and company to do about it? > > Interconnection and free traffic exchange is critical to the growth of the > internet industry and our goals of getting to a majority of content being > exchanged directly on the continent. It is also critical to build the > critical mass, a requirement to justify the investment in infrastructure > such as data centers. > No disagreement here. Look to me the problem is deeper. I would like to know what AFRINIC market analysis is. Membership performance is best rate against that analyse. Will also be good to know obstacles so the people in the community that are care can do something to help. > Yes while my stats were proven wrong, it still deeply concerns me that > when I compare our asn allocation stats to that of lacnic (the closest > comparison to where afrinic and Africa is out of the other RIRs - you find > that our ASN allocation rate year by year for many years is essentially > flat - we hit 150 to 160 allocated every year - but there is no compounded > growth that you see in LACNIC where they are allocation well over a > thousand asns a year and the allocation numbers have been growing each year. > > It is also a concern to me that of the roughly 1600 asns allocated - of > those less than 1200 are visible in the DFZ. > All valid concern. What do you propose should be done about this? I happy to brainstorm and develop ideas. Maybe AFRINIC or any body else can implement. > > Andrew > > Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chevalier du Borg > *Sent:* Sunday, December 9, 2018 09:08 > *To:* Andrew Alston > *Cc:* General Discussions of AFRINIC > *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations > > > > Le mar. 4 d?c. 2018 ? 11:26, Andrew Alston < > Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> a ?crit : > >> >> >> >> As AFRINIC has a mandate to promote Internet growth across the continent, >> I really think it would be good to understand what their thoughts on this >> are ? and no ? before I get jumped on ? I am not blaming AFRINIC for the >> drop ? but it certainly does warrant questions being asked. >> > > > Even though your stat have been prove to be wrong. As former board member > and current operator, you should know that many small ISP in Africa do not > meet the "multi-homing" criteria. So there is natural limit to potential > number of ASN. > > > I have also meet many small ISP operator who have problem getting simple > BGP with big operator. Maybe a skill problem for AFRINIC training team and > AFNOG to address? > > -- > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 06:23:11 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:23:11 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Message-ID: I have hear of - Larus Foundation Fellowship - OIF Fellowship all in addition to AFRINIC fellowship. I have hear people try to compare the two and it a FALSE comparison. Here is why. Policy can benefit or harm Larus (the AFRINIC member). Same is not true of OIF I will also be very concern if AFRINIC fellows always take a position that favour or benefit the company against community. If 100% of Larus Foundation fellow oppose or support policy that will benefit Larus the company, that is corruption. I think this community or board need to be clear about this. It is beginning of very dangerous trend -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sfolayan at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 06:32:43 2018 From: sfolayan at gmail.com (Sunday Folayan) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 07:32:43 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lieutenant General Borg, I agree to some parts about corrupt companies and innocent states. It is corruption all the way, if the State owns the Company. Especially when the voice of the company is the voice of the Nation. We are threading on thin boundaries here. Sunday. On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, 07:23 Chevalier du Borg I have hear of > > - Larus Foundation Fellowship > - OIF Fellowship > > all in addition to AFRINIC fellowship. I have hear people try to compare > the two and it a FALSE comparison. Here is why. > > > Policy can benefit or harm Larus (the AFRINIC member). Same is not true of > OIF > I will also be very concern if AFRINIC fellows always take a position that > favour or benefit the company against community. > > If 100% of Larus Foundation fellow oppose or support policy that will > benefit Larus the company, that is corruption. > > I think this community or board need to be clear about this. It is > beginning of very dangerous trend > > -- > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > _______________________________________________ > 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 mangawilly at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 07:58:31 2018 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 08:58:31 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Questions about AfriNIC Allocations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9ef70d78-01b6-13a3-15e8-d5eaf880be3f@gmail.com> Hi, Le 09/12/2018 ? 09:09, Chevalier du Borg a ?crit?: > [...] > Even though your stat have been prove to be wrong. As former board member > and current operator, you should know that many small ISP in Africa do not > meet the "multi-homing" criteria. So there is natural limit to potential > number of ASN. Mentioned during James' presentation during AFRINIC-29 , page 11 [1] A policy proposal to remove this restriction has been suggested [2] ... 1. https://meeting.afrinic.net/afrinic-29/components/com_afmeeting/speakers/587/5--James-PIER-AF29.pdf 2. https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008651.html -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mangawilly at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 08:17:46 2018 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 09:17:46 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Le 10/12/2018 ? 07:23, Chevalier du Borg a ?crit?: > I have hear of > > - Larus Foundation Fellowship > - OIF Fellowship From my humble point of view, if there is a fellowship-like program in these organizations (and others) a better transparency will be to clearly state on their website: * what is the objectives of the program ? * criteria to apply ? * a public list of people selected at each meeting ... -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dabu.sifiso at yandex.com Mon Dec 10 10:11:06 2018 From: dabu.sifiso at yandex.com (Dabu Sifiso) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 04:11:06 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Dec 10 10:51:39 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:51:39 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> References: , <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: My issue is this... On the one hand - it has been stated on this list that if all delegates sponsored by organization X it is corruption. Firstly that is a totally specious argument that has zero basis in reality. If an idea is bad and multiple people disagree with it and oppose it - that may just be because all those disagreeing think it?s a bad idea - there is no correlation to corruption. However - if we assume that corruption - which I still do not see how we get to - then let us look at the argument from the other perspective - if 100% of the delegates sponsored by an organization that is the arm of government from outside the region oppose something - by the logic that declares unanimous consensus to be corrupt - this to has a term - it is called colonialism. One definition of colonialism is found below: Colonialism is the policy of a foreign polity seeking to extend or retain its authority over other people or territories There is no question that the OIF is an arm of the French government - their website says as much - there is no question that they are a political advocacy body - again - it is all but stated. The question then becomes - if all the delegates sponsored by a corporate entity agree on a position - is it because the position is merely one that makes sense to those delegates or were they coerced - if the latter it is corruption, if the former, there is no problem. Same thing applies to state sponsored delegates, if the former, no problem, if the latter, that is a foreign entity attempting to exert control and 100% colonialist in action. Andrew Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy ________________________________ From: Dabu Sifiso Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 02:12 To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Great idea Mr Manga, We need to have guideline for sponsoring attendance in forms of fellowship. However much I like the idea, I don't believe it can be enforced as a mandatory practice, but seeing it as a general guideline would be good a good thing and with some help can even be promoted. I cannot afford traveling myself, but I would love to be able to apply to the various groups offering fellowships, AFRINIC, ISOC, OIF, ICANN, LARUS, for some, I know who they are and how to apply, I have just not yet been lucky. Having a page with "How to attend?" would be great: List of official fellowships: Fellowship Website A Fellowship Website B Etc... Attendees badges could have the logo of the sponsors, great publicity for the sponsors and full disclosure of who paid for their trip. That would be a great step in transparency and promoting chances of attendance for everyone. organizations that want to be seen would sign up for such programs without hesitation as it would only increase their presence and prestige, organizations with "sinister" goals would not want to be openly disclosed and would stay under the radar as they already do today. Like Mr. Borg said earlier, removing the consensus from the public session would in itself remove any possible criticism on who attends the policy meeting and their affiliations/sponsors. I never quite heard of this LARUS foundation, but the name has been mentioned on the lists a few times. LARUS has sponsored events of AFRINIC in the past: https://twitter.com/afrinic/status/741305950267543553 So LARUS indirectly and openly has been sponsoring AFRINIC meetings and attendees for a few years already. I had never heard of OIF involvements in the AFRINIC community until recently. OIF apparently silently sponsors people for a long time already for what I understood from the exchanges on the list, they even paid money directly to AFRINIC in the early stages of AFRINIC. I could not find the MOU between OIF and AFRINIC, I would love to see it just to have an understanding of what made them get involved in the first place. I searched the OIF website for their goals and motivations into AFRINIC, I cannot find much, last big news are from 2014 when Mr Adiel Akplogan was invited to an OIF internet governance meeting at the headquarters in Paris along with Mr Fadi Chehad? from ICANN: https://www.francophonie.org/Vers-une-nouvelle-gouvernance-de-l.html (Google translate does a good job to translate the content.) A government sponsored organization that specializes in promoting French agenda has enough power to invite the AFRINIC CEO and ICANN CEO to attend their own private events created on the side of official internet governance meetings, this is shows a strong and powerful organization is at play here within the AFRINIC community. Full disclosure on their participation and the affiliates they sponsor he attendance of, I believe would be appreciated by the community and provide a much needed clarity on their goals. /Dabu 10.12.2018, 02:19, "Willy MANGA" : > Hi, > > Le 10/12/2018 ? 07:23, Chevalier du Borg a ?crit : >> I have hear of >> >> - Larus Foundation Fellowship >> - OIF Fellowship > > From my humble point of view, if there is a fellowship-like program in > these organizations (and others) a better transparency will be to > clearly state on their website: > * what is the objectives of the program ? > * criteria to apply ? > * a public list of people selected at each meeting ... > > -- > Willy Manga > @ongolaboy > https://ongola.blogspot.com/ > > , > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu Mon Dec 10 11:01:30 2018 From: ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu (Ish Sookun) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:01:30 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Borg, I speak as a former AFRINIC Fellow [1] and your comment regarding the AFRINIC Fellowship doesn't seem clear to me. Do you mean that AFRINIC Fellows take side of a specific company, which is against the community? I'd like to add that the Fellows are on-site during the meeting and anyone is free to meet and discuss policies with them. In fact, that's a good thing because Fellows are most often new to the community and they get to learn about the processes. AFRINIC does not ask Fellows to take a specific side or favor a certain company. AFRINIC staff help fellows understand the Policy Development Process and encourage them to participate in the PPM. Fellows are then free to voice out their opinion, comment or concern regarding policy proposals. Regards, Ish Sookun [1] I was recipient of the AFRINIC-29 Fellowship and attended the meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia. On 12/10/18 10:23 AM, Chevalier du Borg wrote: > I have hear of? > > - Larus Foundation Fellowship > - OIF Fellowship > > all in addition to AFRINIC fellowship. I have hear people try to compare > the two and it a FALSE comparison. Here is why. > > > Policy can benefit or harm Larus (the?AFRINIC member). Same is not true > of OIF? > I will also be very concern if?AFRINIC fellows always take a position > that favour or benefit the company against community. > > If 100% of Larus Foundation fellow oppose or support policy that will > benefit Larus the company, that is corruption.? > > I think this community or board need to be clear about this. It is > beginning of very dangerous trend > > -- > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From yamadu at ug.edu.gh Mon Dec 10 11:38:18 2018 From: yamadu at ug.edu.gh (AMADU YUSIF) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 11:38:18 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: To add to that as ones a fellow, fellows are from different background and with no more or less little about AFRINIC processes. With exception of major fellows meetings which fellows required to attend, they are allowed to participate in any other meeting or workshop of their choice. There is nothing like fellows are coached to support one side or certain groups or organisation. With the little experience I had with my two FRINIC meetings, I noticed that some members are in silos and trying to protect their interest, and that has nothing to do with the fellows. Yusif Amadu eLearning Unit University of Ghana Computing Systems University of Ghana Cell: +233244659245 Skype: kooissi ________________________________ From: Ish Sookun Sent: 10 December 2018 11:01:30 To: Chevalier du Borg; General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Hi Borg, I speak as a former AFRINIC Fellow [1] and your comment regarding the AFRINIC Fellowship doesn't seem clear to me. Do you mean that AFRINIC Fellows take side of a specific company, which is against the community? I'd like to add that the Fellows are on-site during the meeting and anyone is free to meet and discuss policies with them. In fact, that's a good thing because Fellows are most often new to the community and they get to learn about the processes. AFRINIC does not ask Fellows to take a specific side or favor a certain company. AFRINIC staff help fellows understand the Policy Development Process and encourage them to participate in the PPM. Fellows are then free to voice out their opinion, comment or concern regarding policy proposals. Regards, Ish Sookun [1] I was recipient of the AFRINIC-29 Fellowship and attended the meeting in Hammamet, Tunisia. On 12/10/18 10:23 AM, Chevalier du Borg wrote: > I have hear of > > - Larus Foundation Fellowship > - OIF Fellowship > > all in addition to AFRINIC fellowship. I have hear people try to compare > the two and it a FALSE comparison. Here is why. > > > Policy can benefit or harm Larus (the AFRINIC member). Same is not true > of OIF > I will also be very concern if AFRINIC fellows always take a position > that favour or benefit the company against community. > > If 100% of Larus Foundation fellow oppose or support policy that will > benefit Larus the company, that is corruption. > > I think this community or board need to be clear about this. It is > beginning of very dangerous trend > > -- > Borg le Chevalier > ___________________________________ > "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu Mon Dec 10 12:26:52 2018 From: ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu (Ish Sookun) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:26:52 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> Hi Willy, The agenda as advertised by a fellowship programme and what it actually does on-site might be contradictory. Any organization may write that they are offering a fellowship programme for the betterment of the Internet in the African region, while in fact, they have a more obscure and long term purpose. You can't be sure or ascertain that with what's written on a webpage. It would be only through observation of the fellows actions later that one could come to a conclusion. Regards, Ish Sookun On 12/10/18 12:17 PM, Willy MANGA wrote: > Hi, > > Le 10/12/2018 ? 07:23, Chevalier du Borg a ?crit?: >> I have hear of >> >> - Larus Foundation Fellowship >> - OIF Fellowship > > From my humble point of view, if there is a fellowship-like program in > these organizations (and others) a better transparency will be to > clearly state on their website: > * what is the objectives of the program ? > * criteria to apply ? > * a public list of people selected at each meeting ... > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > From mangawilly at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 13:30:40 2018 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:30:40 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> Message-ID: <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> Hello Ish Le 10/12/2018 ? 13:26, Ish Sookun a ?crit?: > Hi Willy, > > The agenda as advertised by a fellowship programme and what it actually > does on-site might be contradictory. Any organization may write that > they are offering a fellowship programme for the betterment of the > Internet in the African region, while in fact, they have a more obscure > and long term purpose. You can't be sure or ascertain that with what's > written on a webpage. The most important here is : if the organization has a fellowship program or kind of, I suggested to publish it on their website with details (announcements, requirements, results,...). AFRINIC, ICANN fellowship program for instance have dedicated pages on their respective websites. A fellow is bound to some rules put in place by the organization during a specific timeline. Outside fellowship program, it's another story. But I remind you that when you participate in a debate during face-to-face meeting (either on microphone or remotely), you must clearly state your name and your affiliation. Even here on mailing-list it could be a good practice if you use an email address according to your affiliation. Especially if you send messages from your corporate email , it should mean you speak on behalf of that particular organization. When it's not a corporate email, it depends :) -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Mon Dec 10 13:59:38 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 13:59:38 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu>, <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Willy, Just to correct one thing - there is no obligation to state affiliation in the context of the PDP - in fact anyone is free to state an opinion that is entirely their own. Personally I believe that people should declare their affiliations - it?s just not required, and actually when I have on at least two occasions state the organizations who I am making statements on behalf of - I was told that individuals don?t represent organizations on the floor of the pdp and it was immaterial and I should not do that. Andrew Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy ________________________________ From: Willy MANGA Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 05:32 To: community-discuss at afrinic.net Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Hello Ish Le 10/12/2018 ? 13:26, Ish Sookun a ?crit : > Hi Willy, > > The agenda as advertised by a fellowship programme and what it actually > does on-site might be contradictory. Any organization may write that > they are offering a fellowship programme for the betterment of the > Internet in the African region, while in fact, they have a more obscure > and long term purpose. You can't be sure or ascertain that with what's > written on a webpage. The most important here is : if the organization has a fellowship program or kind of, I suggested to publish it on their website with details (announcements, requirements, results,...). AFRINIC, ICANN fellowship program for instance have dedicated pages on their respective websites. A fellow is bound to some rules put in place by the organization during a specific timeline. Outside fellowship program, it's another story. But I remind you that when you participate in a debate during face-to-face meeting (either on microphone or remotely), you must clearly state your name and your affiliation. Even here on mailing-list it could be a good practice if you use an email address according to your affiliation. Especially if you send messages from your corporate email , it should mean you speak on behalf of that particular organization. When it's not a corporate email, it depends :) -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chittesh at lsl.digital Mon Dec 10 14:34:34 2018 From: chittesh at lsl.digital (Chittesh Sham) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:34:34 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Willy, I agree with you that organisations (outside fellowship programs) should have a set of clearly defined rules both for their fellows as well for other stakeholders involved. But the main parties such as AFRINIC and ICAAN should also set some rules for those outside fellowship programmes. As a preventive measure, so as to avoid the running into the risk of some organisation with a lot of fellows having a strong lobby with some sort of hidden agenda. I am unaware if AFRINIC has already setup some rules according to this, do you know if it does? Cheers, Chittesh. ?Get ??BlueMail for Android?? ? On Dec 10, 2018, at 5:30 PM, Willy MANGA wrote: Hello Ish Le 10/12/2018 ? 13:26, Ish Sookun a ?crit?: Hi Willy, The agenda as advertised by a fellowship programme and what it actually does on-site might be contradictory. Any organization may write that they are offering a fellowship programme for the betterment of the Internet in the African region, while in fact, they have a more obscure and long term purpose. You can't be sure or ascertain that with what's written on a webpage. The most important here is : if the organization has a fellowship program or kind of, I suggested to publish it on their website with details (announcements, requirements, results,...). AFRINIC, ICANN fellowship program for instance have dedicated pages on their respective websites. A fellow is bound to some rules put in place by the organization during a specific timeline. Outside fellowship program, it's another story. But I remind you that when you participate in a debate during face-to-face meeting (either on microphone or remotely), you must clearly state your name and your affiliation. Even here on mailing-list it could be a good practice if you use an email address according to your affiliation. Especially if you send messages from your corporate email , it should mean you speak on behalf of that particular organization. When it's not a corporate email, it depends :) h a lot of fellows having a strong lobby with some sort of hidden agenda. I am unaware if AFRINIC has already setup some rules according to this, do you know if it does? Cheers, Chittesh. ?Get BlueMail for Android ? On Dec 10, 2018, 5:30 PM, at 5:30 PM, Willy MANGA wrote: >Hello Ish > >Le 10/12/2018 ? 13:26, Ish Sookun a ?crit?: >> Hi Willy, >> >> The agenda as advertised by a fellowship programme and what it >actually >> does on-site might be contradictory. Any organization may write that >> they are offering a fellowship programme for the betterment of the >> Internet in the African region, while in fact, they have a more >obscure >> and long term purpose. You can't be sure or ascertain that with >what's >> written on a webpage. > >The most important here is : if the organization has a fellowship >program or kind of, I suggested to publish it on their website with >details (announcements, requirements, results,...). >AFRINIC, ICANN fellowship program for instance have dedicated pages on >their respective websites. > >A fellow is bound to some rules put in place by the organization during >a specific timeline. > >Outside fellowship program, it's another story. But I remind you that >when you participate in a debate during face-to-face meeting (either >on >microphone or remotely), you must clearly state your name and your >affiliation. > >Even here on mailing-list it could be a good practice if you use an >email address according to your affiliation. Especially if you send >messages from your corporate email , it should mean you speak on behalf >of that particular organization. When it's not a corporate email, it >depends :) > > >-- >Willy Manga >@ongolaboy >https://ongola.blogspot.com/ > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Community-Discuss mailing list >Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benjamin.eshun at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 14:35:07 2018 From: benjamin.eshun at gmail.com (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:35:07 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oga Sunday, On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:33 AM Sunday Folayan wrote: > > Lieutenant General Borg, > > I agree to some parts about corrupt companies and innocent states. > > It is corruption all the way, if the State owns the Company. Especially when the voice of the company is the voice of the Nation. > > We are threading on thin boundaries here. > It is not a matter of corrupted companies and innocent states. It is more about handling conflict of Interest and impact analysis of one company, member of Afrinic holding 6 millions of afrinic v4 space mobilising people to hijack the PDP (where contribution are individual views) compared to Intergovernmental organisation like OIF sponsoring people to attend meetings. As for company voices, state voices, not much was done during your board member terms and chairmanship to improve afrinic accountability to prevent capture by any group. All calls for this fundamental issues be addressed were just disregarded, sometimes opposed to by company Act. regards, Benjamin From mangawilly at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 14:43:48 2018 From: mangawilly at gmail.com (Willy MANGA) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:43:48 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> Message-ID: <69f2f11d-32b9-8872-955b-6f00b62add5c@gmail.com> Hi Andrew, Le 10/12/2018 ? 14:59, Andrew Alston a ?crit?: > Hi Willy, > > Just to correct one thing - there is no obligation to state affiliation in the context of the PDP - in fact anyone is free to state an opinion that is entirely their own. In this context I consider 'state an opinion which is entirely their own' a kind of affiliation. Sorry if I'm not using the right word. From my perception it means you endorse what you are saying; it depends only of your own person. > Personally I believe that people should declare their affiliations - it?s just not required, and actually when I have on at least two occasions state the organizations who I am making statements on behalf of - I was told that individuals don?t represent organizations on the floor of the pdp and it was immaterial and I should not do that. In the context of PDP, I think organizations can have an opinion *but* presented by individuals. That's why you need to state your affiliation here if I'm right. -- Willy Manga @ongolaboy https://ongola.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Mon Dec 10 14:54:00 2018 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:54:00 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> > On 10 Dec 2018, at 18:34, Chittesh Sham wrote: > > Hi Willy, > > I agree with you that organisations (outside fellowship programs) should have a set of clearly defined rules both for their fellows as well for other stakeholders involved. > > But the main parties such as AFRINIC and ICAAN should also set some rules for those outside fellowship programmes. As a preventive measure, so as to avoid the running into the risk of some organisation with a lot of fellows having a strong lobby with some sort of hidden agenda. > > I am unaware if AFRINIC has already setup some rules according to this, do you know if it does? AFRINIC has not set any rules for what you call ?outside fellowship programmes?. AFRINIC members often sponsor their employees to attend AFRINIC meetings, and other organisations may also sponsor people to attend. AFRINIC has not interfered in such arrangements. At one time, AFRINIC had an arrangement with OIF, where AFRINIC would assist in arranging travel for OIF fellows, but that arrangement lapsed some years ago. Regards, Alan Barrett From ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu Mon Dec 10 17:04:56 2018 From: ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu (Ish Sookun) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:04:56 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Willy, On 12/10/18 5:30 PM, Willy MANGA wrote: > The most important here is : if the organization has a fellowship > program or kind of, I suggested to publish it on their website with > details (announcements, requirements, results,...). > AFRINIC, ICANN fellowship program for instance have dedicated pages on > their respective websites. > I get your point now. It's clearer to me and it makes perfect sense. > A fellow is bound to some rules put in place by the organization during > a specific timeline. > Yes, indeed. > Outside fellowship program, it's another story. But I remind you that > when you participate in a debate during face-to-face meeting (either on > microphone or remotely), you must clearly state your name and your > affiliation. > Yes. In fact, that was one of the basic rules instructed by the AFRINIC fellowship team, to state the affiliation. I did miss a few times on the microphone between saying La Sentinelle (the company I work for) and stating that I am an AFRINIC fellow. > Even here on mailing-list it could be a good practice if you use an > email address according to your affiliation. Especially if you send > messages from your corporate email , it should mean you speak on behalf > of that particular organization. When it's not a corporate email, it > depends :) Agreed. During the meeting though I asked a question to the board members regarding speakers who stated "speaking in my personal capacity" before they took the mic. I wondered whether their respective organizations had a policy/rule on what they could say in such meetings. I also wondered whether such disclaimers are just informational or they hold a legal value. However, coming back to the topic of non-AFRINIC Fellowship that actually sponsors universities, the students could end up stating their affiliation to the university and not to the sponsoring organization; the same with the organization name on their attendee badge and other registration info. Regards, Ish Sookun From ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu Mon Dec 10 17:17:05 2018 From: ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu (Ish Sookun) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:17:05 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> Message-ID: <40cbd392-e91c-3f26-8ffe-fdbcfb63469e@lasentinelle.mu> Hi Andrew, On 12/10/18 5:59 PM, Andrew Alston wrote: > Personally I believe that people should declare their affiliations - > it?s just not required, and actually when I have on at least two > occasions state the organizations who I am making statements on behalf > of - I was told that individuals don?t represent organizations on the > floor of the pdp and it was immaterial and I should not do that. I asked a similar question during the open mic at AFRINIC-29, more specifically regarding people that say "speaking in my own capacity". The answer from an AFRINIC board member was that when it comes to policy it is about the community and there is no distinction between saying that you are speaking as an organization or personal capacity. At least that is what I could grasp. The answer can be listed as from 52:47 here: https://youtu.be/rDtyyJHvyAE?t=3167 Regards, Ish Sookun From ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu Mon Dec 10 17:32:29 2018 From: ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu (Ish Sookun) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:32:29 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <7873812e-1f51-5839-0da1-764efc4884cd@lasentinelle.mu> Hi Alan, On 12/10/18 6:54 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > At one time, AFRINIC had an arrangement with OIF, where AFRINIC would assist in arranging travel for OIF fellows, but that arrangement lapsed some years ago. Are there any published details on the In-Kind Sponsorship [1] for AFRINIC events? Regards, Ish Sookun [1] https://afrinic.net/events/sponsorship#why From chittesh at lsl.digital Mon Dec 10 17:47:13 2018 From: chittesh at lsl.digital (Chittesh Sham) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 21:47:13 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <1faf21c2-5be7-4dae-848d-35b92728418d@lsl.digital> Hi Alan, Thank you for the information. I understand that AFRINIC is very liberal in allowing external sponsorship by AFRINIC members for their employees to attend AFRINIC meetings and i firmly? believe in this as it encourages others to do the same and grows the community. What i'm curious to know is that whether or not it is deemed as appropriate for AFRINIC to intervene in circumstances that could end up filling the room with sponsored people favoring a specific organisation ? Cheers, Chittesh ? On Dec 10, 2018, 6:54 PM, at 6:54 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 10 Dec 2018, at 18:34, Chittesh Sham wrote: >> >> Hi Willy, >> >> I agree with you that organisations (outside fellowship programs) >should have a set of clearly defined rules both for their fellows as >well for other stakeholders involved. >> >> But the main parties such as AFRINIC and ICAAN should also set some >rules for those outside fellowship programmes. As a preventive measure, >so as to avoid the running into the risk of some organisation with a >lot of fellows having a strong lobby with some sort of hidden agenda. >> >> I am unaware if AFRINIC has already setup some rules according to >this, do you know if it does? > >AFRINIC has not set any rules for what you call ?outside fellowship >programmes?. AFRINIC members often sponsor their employees to attend >AFRINIC meetings, and other organisations may also sponsor people to >attend. AFRINIC has not interfered in such arrangements. > >At one time, AFRINIC had an arrangement with OIF, where AFRINIC would >assist in arranging travel for OIF fellows, but that arrangement lapsed >some years ago. > >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 owen at delong.com Tue Dec 11 07:19:35 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 23:19:35 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> > On Dec 10, 2018, at 06:35 , Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > Oga Sunday, > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:33 AM Sunday Folayan wrote: >> >> Lieutenant General Borg, >> >> I agree to some parts about corrupt companies and innocent states. >> >> It is corruption all the way, if the State owns the Company. Especially when the voice of the company is the voice of the Nation. >> >> We are threading on thin boundaries here. >> > > It is not a matter of corrupted companies and innocent states. > > It is more about handling conflict of Interest and impact analysis > of one company, member of Afrinic holding 6 millions of afrinic v4 > space mobilising people to hijack the PDP (where contribution are > individual views) compared to Intergovernmental organisation like > OIF sponsoring people to attend meetings. Benjamin, Once again, you make this claim, but do you have any evidence to support it? While I have done some work for Larus, I have never been instructed by Larus on what opinion I should hold or express. How is it hijacking the PDP when people make a cogent argument against a proposal? I realize you support the proposal. This does not mean that all opposition to the proposal is inherently corrupt and your constant specious claims to the contrary ignore several facts: 1. Multiple organizations are represented in the opposition. 2. Many people who were not Larus fellows spoke in opposition to the proposal, myself included. 3. Just because Larus sponsored someone?s travel to the meeting does not necessarily mean that they will express an opinion with which they don?t agree. Certainly I would never do such a thing. You can be assured that any opinion I ever express on this list or in any meeting is one which I hold personally. This proposal is deeply flawed, unnecessary, and should be abandoned. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please, can we stop this contest of innuendo and rumor and get back to substantive discussion of proposed policies? Thanks, Owen From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Tue Dec 11 09:21:42 2018 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:21:42 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <7873812e-1f51-5839-0da1-764efc4884cd@lasentinelle.mu> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> <7873812e-1f51-5839-0da1-764efc4884cd@lasentinelle.mu> Message-ID: > On 10 Dec 2018, at 21:32, Ish Sookun wrote: > > Are there any published details on the In-Kind Sponsorship [1] for > AFRINIC events? We publish the names of all sponsors. In-kind sponsorship is typically from the local host, and from one or more bandwidth sponsors. Regards, Alan Barrett From benjamin.eshun at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 11:07:18 2018 From: benjamin.eshun at gmail.com (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:07:18 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, This thread is not about a particular policy as community is discussing two possible threats to Afrinic PDP and its governance in general. Your obstinacy to discuss and oppose review proposal everywhere and at any occasions, made me doubt and question your real relationship with Larus... Thank you for disclosing your work relationship with Larus.You are conflicted and I would expect you to observe ethics in this discussion affecting Larus holding 6 millions IPV4 and opposing the review proposal. Let's expect others who have worked or working with Larus to have the courage to also disclose. Policy discussions happen on rpd and must remain there. As for your claim about my support to the review proposal, I strongly believe in accountability and transparency. As you keep questioning board actions, I do support that those who has been granted "right to use" public resources be held accountable to them. RIR governance (*) is so important and i would like to see AFRINIC holding good position among the five RIRs and will always support actions aiming to improve governance and accountability. I have nor worked for Larus nor be sponsored by OIF, but I do know how OIF support has been instrumental to this community through, AFNOG, AFRICACERT, AFTLD.. (*) https://www.nro.net/accountability/rir-accountability/rir-governance-matrix/ regards, Benjamin On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:19 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 2018, at 06:35 , Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > > > Oga Sunday, > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:33 AM Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> > >> Lieutenant General Borg, > >> > >> I agree to some parts about corrupt companies and innocent states. > >> > >> It is corruption all the way, if the State owns the Company. Especially when the voice of the company is the voice of the Nation. > >> > >> We are threading on thin boundaries here. > >> > > > > It is not a matter of corrupted companies and innocent states. > > > > It is more about handling conflict of Interest and impact analysis > > of one company, member of Afrinic holding 6 millions of afrinic v4 > > space mobilising people to hijack the PDP (where contribution are > > individual views) compared to Intergovernmental organisation like > > OIF sponsoring people to attend meetings. > > Benjamin, > > Once again, you make this claim, but do you have any evidence to support it? > > While I have done some work for Larus, I have never been instructed by Larus on what opinion I should hold or express. > > How is it hijacking the PDP when people make a cogent argument against a proposal? I realize you support the proposal. This does not mean that all opposition to the proposal is inherently corrupt and your constant specious claims to the contrary ignore several facts: > > 1. Multiple organizations are represented in the opposition. > 2. Many people who were not Larus fellows spoke in opposition to the proposal, myself included. > 3. Just because Larus sponsored someone?s travel to the meeting does not necessarily mean that they will > express an opinion with which they don?t agree. Certainly I would never do such a thing. You can be assured > that any opinion I ever express on this list or in any meeting is one which I hold personally. This proposal > is deeply flawed, unnecessary, and should be abandoned. > > Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please, can we stop this contest of innuendo and rumor and get back to substantive discussion of proposed policies? > > Thanks, > > Owen > From alan.barrett at afrinic.net Tue Dec 11 14:03:45 2018 From: alan.barrett at afrinic.net (Alan Barrett) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:03:45 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <1faf21c2-5be7-4dae-848d-35b92728418d@lsl.digital> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> <1faf21c2-5be7-4dae-848d-35b92728418d@lsl.digital> Message-ID: <82F6F927-E4E1-4EA3-9F91-E6FC6674AE08@afrinic.net> > On 10 Dec 2018, at 21:47, Chittesh Sham wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > Thank you for the information. I understand that AFRINIC is very liberal in allowing external sponsorship by AFRINIC members for their employees to attend AFRINIC meetings and i firmly believe in this as it encourages others to do the same and grows the community. > > What i'm curious to know is that whether or not it is deemed as appropriate for AFRINIC to intervene in circumstances that could end up filling the room with sponsored people favoring a specific organisation ? AFRINIC public policy meetings have always been open to all. The policy development process even specifies "Anyone may participate via the Internet or in person.? Regards, Alan Barrett From virtual.borg at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 14:59:36 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:59:36 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: Le lun. 10 d?c. 2018 ? 14:54, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > > On the one hand - it has been stated on this list that if all delegates > sponsored by organization X it is corruption. Firstly that is a totally > specious argument that has zero basis in reality. If an idea is bad and > multiple people disagree with it and oppose it - that may just be because > all those disagreeing think it?s a bad idea - there is no correlation to > corruption. > Arms dealer and gun makers have similar arguement to hide the fact that stopping war or easy acqusition of arm will BENEFIT them. It is not all situation where that is the case. But as in all murder investigation, we should always ask - who benefit from this thing going down. > > However - if we assume that corruption - which I still do not see how we > get to - then let us look at the argument from the other perspective - if > 100% of the delegates sponsored by an organization that is the arm of > government from outside the region oppose something - by the logic that > declares unanimous consensus to be corrupt - this to has a term - it is > called colonialism. > You forget a difference. OIF is not a resource member unlike Larus. Tell us how OIF or France will benefit from pass of Review proposal. > > One definition of colonialism is found below: > > Colonialism is the policy of a foreign polity seeking to extend or retain > its authority over other people or territories > If OIF were try to put french citizen people on AFRINIC board, your argument will make sense. It is not. If you have evidence to show it has, please share and tell us how they benefit from it. > > > The question then becomes - if all the delegates sponsored by a corporate > entity agree on a position - is it because the position is merely one that > makes sense to those delegates or were they coerced - if the latter it is > corruption, if the former, there is no problem. > To be clear, I oppose ALL sponsoree of any organisation taking same position. It is distructive to our PDP. Whether it be OIF or Larus. I think Larus Foundation one is worse because a member will directly benefit from it, which is not the case for OIF. -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 15:01:38 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:01:38 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le lun. 10 d?c. 2018 ? 15:01, Ish Sookun a ?crit : > Hi Borg, > > I speak as a former AFRINIC Fellow [1] and your comment regarding the > AFRINIC Fellowship doesn't seem clear to me. Do you mean that AFRINIC > Fellows take side of a specific company, which is against the community? > I mean, **if** AFRINIC obliges it fellow to support a position that may be benefit the company (afrinic) against the community. it is corruption. > > -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 15:10:58 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:10:58 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> Message-ID: Le mar. 11 d?c. 2018 ? 11:21, Owen DeLong a ?crit : > > > While I have done some work for Larus, I have never been instructed by > Larus on what opinion I should hold or express. > It just happen that you vehement oppose the same policy that they oppose. And the reason why it problematic is that (a) you are not a citizen of africa, (b) do not live in africa and (c) not operate a network on this continent. You should really limit your participation to on thing whose consequence you never have to live with. Before you or anyone cry racism - I have same opinion of any interventionister who don't know when to step back because the consequence of a certain policy will never affect them (whether they are black, brown, white or orange) -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From virtual.borg at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 15:13:23 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 19:13:23 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <82F6F927-E4E1-4EA3-9F91-E6FC6674AE08@afrinic.net> References: <4a738a38-9a9b-034c-f176-5bb23c10ab6a@lasentinelle.mu> <369c28aa-1f86-c50a-625a-08b173c65327@gmail.com> <06AD784D-BAAA-4239-BB13-20B14D36E9D4@afrinic.net> <1faf21c2-5be7-4dae-848d-35b92728418d@lsl.digital> <82F6F927-E4E1-4EA3-9F91-E6FC6674AE08@afrinic.net> Message-ID: Le mar. 11 d?c. 2018 ? 18:06, Alan Barrett a ?crit : > > > > AFRINIC public policy meetings have always been open to all. The policy > development process even specifies "Anyone may participate via the Internet > or in person.? > This is problem that need to be fix. Only people who will deal with consequence of policy should have a say. Only people who have previous discuss a proposal should have their opinion count. People who walk into a meeting with strip of paper to read statement that clearly show they don't understand the issue should not be consider. > > -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Dec 11 15:41:27 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:41:27 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: * If OIF were try to put french citizen people on AFRINIC board, your argument will make sense. It is not. If you have evidence to show it has, please share and tell us how they benefit from it. Actually this claim concerns me more than anything and highlights everything I believe is wrong with this policy in the first place. Firstly it assumes facts not yet in evidence ? because any ?benefit? would assume that 1. There is sufficient evidence to use this policy against Larus at the request of a member initiated review ? there is no evidence of this 2. Failing (a) it assumes that Larus will some how come up in ?random? review ? which would be far from random 3. As regards (a) it assumes that there even if a review were done against Larus that there would be any finding of guilty Since none of those things have been proven nor has any evidence been shown ? and in fact AFRINIC has repeatedly stated that those applications for space were thoroughly reviewed and vetted ? I fail to see how you can claim benefit. The only time defeat of this policy clearly benefits someone before its even passed is if we have a guarantee that they were in fact be reviewed ? and since review is random ? or initiated by evidence backed complaint ? either ? this argument is specious in nature ? or the policy is indeed targeted against specific companies ? either way ? the logic in the argument fails Andrew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Dec 11 15:44:26 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:44:26 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> Message-ID: <1F5FDEAE-DBE8-4089-87C2-14CAA3017DFE@liquidtelecom.com> The argument about conflict is simply non-sensical, since any person holding IP space on the continent is potentially conflicted in ANY policy through the PDP. The point of the PDP is to create policies which self-govern the use of resources by members who hold the resources ? that means that by definition, every single person who holds IP space is conflicted during the passage of any policy that goes anywhere near the use of IP space. Hence ? this logic falls flat Andrew From: Benjamin Eshun Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 03:09 To: Owen DeLong Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Owen, This thread is not about a particular policy as community is discussing two possible threats to Afrinic PDP and its governance in general. Your obstinacy to discuss and oppose review proposal everywhere and at any occasions, made me doubt and question your real relationship with Larus... Thank you for disclosing your work relationship with Larus.You are conflicted and I would expect you to observe ethics in this discussion affecting Larus holding 6 millions IPV4 and opposing the review proposal. Let's expect others who have worked or working with Larus to have the courage to also disclose. Policy discussions happen on rpd and must remain there. As for your claim about my support to the review proposal, I strongly believe in accountability and transparency. As you keep questioning board actions, I do support that those who has been granted "right to use" public resources be held accountable to them. RIR governance (*) is so important and i would like to see AFRINIC holding good position among the five RIRs and will always support actions aiming to improve governance and accountability. I have nor worked for Larus nor be sponsored by OIF, but I do know how OIF support has been instrumental to this community through, AFNOG, AFRICACERT, AFTLD.. (*) https://www.nro.net/accountability/rir-accountability/rir-governance-matrix/ regards, Benjamin On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:19 AM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 2018, at 06:35 , Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > > > Oga Sunday, > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:33 AM Sunday Folayan wrote: > >> > >> Lieutenant General Borg, > >> > >> I agree to some parts about corrupt companies and innocent states. > >> > >> It is corruption all the way, if the State owns the Company. Especially when the voice of the company is the voice of the Nation. > >> > >> We are threading on thin boundaries here. > >> > > > > It is not a matter of corrupted companies and innocent states. > > > > It is more about handling conflict of Interest and impact analysis > > of one company, member of Afrinic holding 6 millions of afrinic v4 > > space mobilising people to hijack the PDP (where contribution are > > individual views) compared to Intergovernmental organisation like > > OIF sponsoring people to attend meetings. > > Benjamin, > > Once again, you make this claim, but do you have any evidence to support it? > > While I have done some work for Larus, I have never been instructed by Larus on what opinion I should hold or express. > > How is it hijacking the PDP when people make a cogent argument against a proposal? I realize you support the proposal. This does not mean that all opposition to the proposal is inherently corrupt and your constant specious claims to the contrary ignore several facts: > > 1. Multiple organizations are represented in the opposition. > 2. Many people who were not Larus fellows spoke in opposition to the proposal, myself included. > 3. Just because Larus sponsored someone?s travel to the meeting does not necessarily mean that they will > express an opinion with which they don?t agree. Certainly I would never do such a thing. You can be assured > that any opinion I ever express on this list or in any meeting is one which I hold personally. This proposal > is deeply flawed, unnecessary, and should be abandoned. > > Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please, can we stop this contest of innuendo and rumor and get back to substantive discussion of proposed policies? > > Thanks, > > Owen > _______________________________________________ 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 ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu Tue Dec 11 16:54:40 2018 From: ish.sookun at lasentinelle.mu (Ish Sookun) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:54:40 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0c7ff7a8-e958-bf5b-f765-eb53f1a78735@lasentinelle.mu> Hi Borg, On 12/11/18 7:01 PM, Chevalier du Borg wrote: > > I mean, **if**?AFRINIC obliges it fellow to support a position that may > be benefit the company (afrinic) against the community. it is corruption.? > ? Thank you for clarifying with the **if** ;-) Yes, from that point of view, it would not be ethical. Luckily, that isn't the case. I met former AFRINIC fellows at the last meeting and they are independent in their opinions, no strings attached. Regards, Ish Sookun From owen at delong.com Tue Dec 11 19:03:30 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 11:03:30 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> Message-ID: <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> > On Dec 11, 2018, at 03:07 , Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > Owen, > > This thread is not about a particular policy as community is > discussing two possible threats to Afrinic PDP and its governance in > general. Did I say that it was? If so, please point to it. > Your obstinacy to discuss and oppose review proposal everywhere and > at any occasions, made me doubt and question your real relationship > with Larus? > My opinion of the review policy predates any working relationship with Larus, so if you believe I formed my opinion on that basis, you are mistaken. > Thank you for disclosing your work relationship with Larus.You are > conflicted and I would expect you to observe ethics in this discussion > affecting Larus holding 6 millions IPV4 and opposing the review > proposal. I?ve never made secret of the fact that I have done some consulting work with Larus and this is not the first time I?ve disclosed it, so again, I think you have your facts wrong. Further, my consulting relationship with Larus did not begin until just prior to the Dakar meeting. You will notice that my opposition to the review policy began well before that. Finally, no, I am not conflicted and your claim that I am constitutes an ad hominem attack. The review proposal is a bad proposal. It was a bad proposal before I started doing any work with Larus, and it remains a bad proposal. Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the discussion. > Let's expect others who have worked or working with Larus to have the > courage to also disclose. I would hope anyone would disclose their relationships, though this is voluntary as has been pointed out in the past. Perhaps if you were not so quick to think that you can call COI just because someone works for a particular resource holder that is known to hold an opposing position, people would be more likely to disclose. For a COI to exist, one needs to be in a position of power (e.g. PDWG co-chair) in addition to having the potential to benefit from the policy going one way or another. ALL resource members are impacted by virtually any policy change. By your intended meaning of COI above, no resource member or anyone affiliated with any resource member would ever be able to participate in any policy discussion due to COI. This is absurd. > Policy discussions happen on rpd and must remain there. As for your > claim about my support to the review proposal, I strongly believe in > accountability and transparency. As you keep questioning board > actions, I do support that those who has been granted "right to use" > public resources be held accountable to them. I?m all for accountability and transparency and this is already supported by the review provisions in the RSA. The proposed review policy is not about accountability and transparency, it?s about empowering the more radical elements in the community with the ability to conduct a form of financial attack against resource members they don?t like. > RIR governance (*) is so important and i would like to see AFRINIC > holding good position among the five RIRs and will always support > actions aiming to improve governance and accountability. Well, one of the best actions that could be taken in support of that claim would be to recognize this review policy for what it is and withdraw it. > I have nor worked for Larus nor be sponsored by OIF, but I do know how > OIF support has been instrumental to this community through, AFNOG, > AFRICACERT, AFTLD.. I don?t believe I?ve ever attacked OIF or their participation. While I do share some of the suspicions expressed about the actions of at least some of the people routinely sponsored by OIF to attend AfriNIC, I don?t have enough evidence to make any accusations and have not done so. Further, I have not, until you made this call, so much as expressed my suspicions in a public forum. Owen From amreesh at afrinic.net Wed Dec 12 05:09:51 2018 From: amreesh at afrinic.net (Amreesh Phokeer) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 09:09:51 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> References: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> Message-ID: <9DA714A2-038A-4387-8B63-E2B85B9B414D@afrinic.net> Dear Sami, > On 7 Dec 2018, at 17:15, Sami Salih wrote: > > Thank you very much for this informative reply, I really appreciate what have be do in R&D, however as ex-Head of R&D at the Telecom regulatory of my country I want to see more engagement with policy oprganizations to fill the gap in policy related research studies. I may refer back to you with some ToR. Thank you. We are welcome to suggestions and guidance on how to direct our research work. As we are not policy specialists but rather engineers, we are open to collaboration to help us bridge this gap. Kind regards, Amreesh From jaberamatogoro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 09:36:16 2018 From: jaberamatogoro at gmail.com (Matogoro Jabera) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 12:36:16 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> References: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> Message-ID: Dear Amreesh,Dear Colleagues, I have been following this thread regarding AFRINIC Research and Development, I once asked similar question on the methodologies and approaches used by AFRINIC in identifying research areas and its relevance in addressing issues facing AFRINIC members and AFRINIC Mission. Thank you for the answers you have provided and being that much transparent that the department is led by Engineers who are not necessarily having policy skills. This therefore provide a room to engage other experts to complement the current skill sets in the department. I work with University of Dodoma as a researcher and we are also member of AFRINIC but I have never come across to such consultation on research priorities. The question is relevant and I have a feeling that more engagement is required. Regards, Matogoro J On 12/7/18, Sami Salih wrote: > > Dear Amreesh, > > Thank you very much for this informative reply, I really appreciate what > have be do in R&D, however as ex-Head of R&D at the Telecom regulatory of my > country I want to see more engagement with policy oprganizations to fill the > gap in policy related research studies. I may refer back to you with some > ToR. > > BR > > ---- Original Message ----- > From: Amreesh Phokeer > To: sami at tpra.gov.sd > Cc: community-discuss at afrinic.net > Sent: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 13:37:13 +0300 (EAT) > Subject: How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? > > Dear Sami, > > Following our remote presentation on the Research and Innovation (R&I) > Department update, you and some other delegates had some questions which I > would try to answer on the list; perhaps this could spark more > discussions/recommendations on the activities of AFRINIC Research. > > Questions from the audience at AFRINIC-29: > > #### What is the methodology for selecting research projects? #### > We try, as much as possible, to work on research projects that will help > formulate policies that can have a positive impact on the development of the > Internet ecosystem in Africa. Research projects are therefore selected based > on the mutual interest from AFRINIC Research partners and on potential > impact it can bring. > Example of a policy brief, based on a research study: > > > #### Whether AFRINIC Research team takes feedback from the community on > research needed and how does the research benefit the community with regards > to issues faced by the community? #### > We gather feedback based on the discussions we have during our meetings. For > e.g. we presented a city-to-city latency analysis as a follow-up of the > Africa Latency study at AFPIF, this year, based on requests we received on > the microphone. In the future, we intend to run a survey to get more > detailed feedback on the needs of the community in terms of research. The > team will launch an ?Internet Measurement Awareness Survey? early next year > to understand the ?Internet measurement needs" of the community. > > #### Is AFRINIC involved in research with regards to marketing and > regulatory aspects? #### > AFRINIC is definitely interested in understanding the dynamics of the ISP > market and how it is influenced by the regulations in different countries. > We have not done any research work on this aspect as at now, but this is a > topic in which Research ICT Africa has a good expertise, we may consider > collaborate with them in the future. > > You will find all research output from the R&I team in the last two years at > this link: > > > We also worked on a proof-of-concept of a data portal, which contains > information such as IPv6 penetration, ISP market share, etc. Extending this > platform is one of our main projects in 2019: > > World Internet Data ExplorER (WIDER) Project > > > Hope this helps. Please send any suggestions, research ideas, etc to AFRINIC > Labs > > Kind regards, > > > -- > Amreesh D. Phokeer > R&D Manager, AFRINIC > t: +230 403 51 00 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: > > www.afrinic.net > facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia > @amreesh > Skype: amreesh.afrinic > _______________________ > > > > -- > Dr. Sami Salih | Assistant Professor > Sudan University of Science and Technology > Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407 > email: sami.salih at sustech.edu > Mob: +249122045707 > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -- MATOGORO Jabhera Assistant Lecturer College of Informatics and Virtual Education The University of Dodoma P.O Box 490, Dodoma. Website: www.udom.ac.tz *IEEE Membership ID: 93934185* From virtual.borg at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 10:38:27 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:38:27 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: Le mar. 11 d?c. 2018 ? 19:41, Andrew Alston a ?crit : > > - If OIF were try to put french citizen people on AFRINIC board, your > argument will make sense. It is not. If you have evidence to show it has, > please share and tell us how they benefit from it. > > > > Actually this claim concerns me more than anything and highlights > everything I believe is wrong with this policy in the first place. Firstly > it assumes facts not yet in evidence ? because any ?benefit? would assume > that > > > > 1. There is sufficient evidence to use this policy against Larus at > the request of a member initiated review ? there is no evidence of this > 2. Failing (a) it assumes that Larus will some how come up in ?random? > review ? which would be far from random > 3. As regards (a) it assumes that there even if a review were done > against Larus that there would be any finding of guilty > > > > Since none of those things have been proven nor has any evidence been > shown ? and in fact AFRINIC has repeatedly stated that those applications > for space were thoroughly reviewed and vetted ? I fail to see how you can > claim benefit. > You still avoid how OIF and a member are equivalent. They are not. A member can potentially benefit or suffer from this proposal - not so OIF. That the point. As to everything having been review and ok by AFRINIC, please note that every one of the multinational company that rape this continent usually obey the LETTER of the law. -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sm+af at afrinic.net Wed Dec 12 11:08:05 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 03:08:05 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: References: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212030045.127a9648@elandnews.com> Dear Mr Matogoro, At 01:36 AM 12-12-2018, Matogoro Jabera wrote: >I work with University of Dodoma as a researcher and we are also >member of AFRINIC but I have never come across to such consultation on >research priorities. I am interested in your views about what should be the research priorities. May I suggest that you raise the issue on the members mailing list? Regards, S. Moonesamy From badru.ntege at nftconsult.com Wed Dec 12 15:01:15 2018 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:01:15 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: <857D8750-916D-42B0-8116-95FD3EDB6BA8@nftconsult.com> From: Chevalier du Borg Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:42 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - As to everything having been review and ok by AFRINIC, please note that every one of the multinational company that rape this continent usually obey the LETTER of the law. Multinationals fronted by members hide behind the law to continue the rape and pilage of our resources including the number resources.? We have seen the law used so many times to destroy what others have painfully built.? We often see that in our community.? When facts and reason fail the law is used. BN -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" _______________________________________________ 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 Dec 12 15:58:29 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:58:29 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <857D8750-916D-42B0-8116-95FD3EDB6BA8@nftconsult.com> References: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> <857D8750-916D-42B0-8116-95FD3EDB6BA8@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: See ? I see these as totally unsubstantiated allegations with no substance. So ? if this is what you believe ? who are these multi-nationals you refer to that are raping and pillaging our resources. If you wanna make accusations like this ? speak the names ? give the evidence ? and keep in mind ? the one defense against defamation is the truth. If however you don?t wish to name names ? and risk the potential consequences if you can?t actually back up the claims ? then lets quit with the rhetoric and the vague insinuations that have no specifics and no basis in fact. Andrew From: Badru Ntege Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 07:01 To: Chevalier du Borg , Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - From: Chevalier du Borg Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:42 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - As to everything having been review and ok by AFRINIC, please note that every one of the multinational company that rape this continent usually obey the LETTER of the law. Multinationals fronted by members hide behind the law to continue the rape and pilage of our resources including the number resources. We have seen the law used so many times to destroy what others have painfully built. We often see that in our community. When facts and reason fail the law is used. BN -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" _______________________________________________ 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 gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr Wed Dec 12 16:33:06 2018 From: gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr (Gregoire Ehoumi) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:33:06 -0500 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Message-ID: The point makes perfect sense. ?Any organisation holding IP's from AFRINC is only doing so in trust and not their property, ?It can be recalled back at any time if/when? AFRINIC believes that they are not being used for the reasons and purposes for which they were allocated. ?Especially in this arena where technology and organisations can change.? The PDP and this Review policy is just a mean in which AFRINIC can enforce its RSA, specifically Section 4 -C - (iii)? This policy only gives guidelines as to how this can be implemented in a fair and transparent process.? How can you or any other African be against this. If a member already goes through an evaluation process when acquiring resources why should the member be opposed to a periodic review. The conflict comes because a particular member is fighting? deadly such a proposal and people? speaking on their personal capacity and opposing the proposal on the PDP list and at meetings, have work relationship with that member. They are conflicted and so their opinions must be taken into context. --Gregoire ------ Original message------From: Andrew AlstonDate: Tue, Dec 11, 2018 10:44 AMTo: Benjamin Eshun;Owen DeLong;Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC;Subject:Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - The argument about conflict is simply non-sensical, since any person holding IP space on the continent is potentially conflicted in ANY policy through the PDP.? The point of the PDP is to create policies which self-govern the use of resources by members who hold the resources ? that means that by definition, every single person who holds IP space is conflicted during the passage of any policy that goes anywhere near the use of IP space. ? Hence ? this logic falls flat ? Andrew ? ? From: Benjamin Eshun > Date: Tuesday, 11 December 2018 at 03:09 To: Owen DeLong > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - ? Owen, This thread is not about a particular policy as community is discussing two possible threats to Afrinic PDP and its governance in general. Your obstinacy to discuss and oppose review proposal everywhere and at any occasions, made me doubt and question your real relationship with Larus... Thank you for disclosing your work relationship with Larus.You are conflicted and I would expect you to observe ethics in this discussion affecting Larus holding 6 millions IPV4 and opposing the review proposal. Let's expect others who have worked or working with Larus to have the courage to also disclose. Policy discussions happen on rpd and must remain there. As for your claim about my support to the review proposal, I strongly believe in accountability and transparency. As you keep questioning board actions, I do support that those who has been granted "right to use" public resources be held accountable to them. RIR governance (*) is so important and i would like to see AFRINIC holding good position among the five RIRs and will always support actions aiming to improve governance and accountability. I have nor worked for Larus nor be sponsored by OIF, but I do know how OIF support has been instrumental to this community through, AFNOG, AFRICACERT, AFTLD.. (*) https://www.nro.net/accountability/rir-accountability/rir-governance-matrix/ regards, Benjamin On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 7:19 AM Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > > > On Dec 10, 2018, at 06:35 , Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > > > Oga Sunday, > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:33 AM Sunday Folayan > wrote: > >> > >> Lieutenant General Borg, > >> > >> I agree to some parts about corrupt companies and innocent states. > >> > >> It is corruption all the way, if the State owns the Company. Especially when the voice of the company is the voice of the Nation. > >> > >> We are threading on thin boundaries here. > >> > > > > It is not a matter of corrupted companies and innocent states. > > > > It is more about handling conflict of Interest and impact analysis > > of one company, member of Afrinic holding 6 millions of afrinic v4 > > space mobilising people to hijack the PDP (where contribution are > > individual views) compared to Intergovernmental organisation like > > OIF sponsoring people to attend meetings. > > Benjamin, > > Once again, you make this claim, but do you have any evidence to support it? > > While I have done some work for Larus, I have never been instructed by Larus on what opinion I should hold or express. > > How is it hijacking the PDP when people make a cogent argument against a proposal? I realize you support the proposal. This does not mean that all opposition to the proposal is inherently corrupt and your constant specious claims to the contrary ignore several facts: > > 1. Multiple organizations are represented in the opposition. > 2. Many people who were not Larus fellows spoke in opposition to the proposal, myself included. > 3. Just because Larus sponsored someone?s travel to the meeting does not necessarily mean that they will > express an opinion with which they don?t agree. Certainly I would never do such a thing. You can be assured > that any opinion I ever express on this list or in any meeting is one which I hold personally. This proposal > is deeply flawed, unnecessary, and should be abandoned. > > Unless you have evidence to the contrary, please, can we stop this contest of innuendo and rumor and get back to substantive discussion of proposed policies? > > Thanks, > > Owen > _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Dec 12 16:54:18 2018 From: badru.ntege at nftconsult.com (Badru Ntege) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:54:18 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> <857D8750-916D-42B0-8116-95FD3EDB6BA8@nftconsult.com> Message-ID: <20139B24-6239-4A8E-8284-5E5B95FBD456@nftconsult.com> ? ?Me thinks the man doth protest too much A general statement shared openly as an observation not pointed to any one multinational or individual should be allowed to be just that.? An observation by a community member.? No need for ?legal? requirements of evidence. Regards BN From: Andrew Alston Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 7:01 PM To: Badru Ntege , Chevalier du Borg Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - See ? I see these as totally unsubstantiated allegations with no substance. So ? if this is what you believe ? who are these multi-nationals you refer to that are raping and pillaging our resources. If you wanna make accusations like this ? speak the names ? give the evidence ? and keep in mind ? the one defense against defamation is the truth. If however you don?t wish to name names ? and risk the potential consequences if you can?t actually back up the claims ? then lets quit with the rhetoric and the vague insinuations that have no specifics and no basis in fact. Andrew From: Badru Ntege Date: Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 07:01 To: Chevalier du Borg , Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - From: Chevalier du Borg Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 1:42 PM To: Andrew Alston Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - As to everything having been review and ok by AFRINIC, please note that every one of the multinational company that rape this continent usually obey the LETTER of the law. Multinationals fronted by members hide behind the law to continue the rape and pilage of our resources including the number resources. We have seen the law used so many times to destroy what others have painfully built. We often see that in our community. When facts and reason fail the law is used. BN -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" _______________________________________________ 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 chittesh at lsl.digital Wed Dec 12 16:59:51 2018 From: chittesh at lsl.digital (Chittesh Sham) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 20:59:51 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Inter-RIR Resource Transfers v3? Message-ID: <3512684b-f6c0-7793-3c31-010a030202c7@lsl.digital> Hi Jordi, Will you be updating your Inter-RIR Resource Transfers v2 proposal based on feedback from last meeting in Hammamet? Cheers, Chittesh Sham From jordi.palet at consulintel.es Wed Dec 12 17:24:18 2018 From: jordi.palet at consulintel.es (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:24:18 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Inter-RIR Resource Transfers v3? In-Reply-To: <3512684b-f6c0-7793-3c31-010a030202c7@lsl.digital> References: <3512684b-f6c0-7793-3c31-010a030202c7@lsl.digital> Message-ID: Hi Chittesh, Yes, of course. Need to find some time to read minutes, look at the videos, and of course, if you have any suggestions on that, please, do those in the policy mailing list. I will be responding to any comments and in some days/weeks, make an alternative proposal. Thanks! Regards, Jordi ?-----Mensaje original----- De: Chittesh Sham Fecha: mi?rcoles, 12 de diciembre de 2018, 18:01 Para: CC: Asunto: [Community-Discuss] Inter-RIR Resource Transfers v3? Hi Jordi, Will you be updating your Inter-RIR Resource Transfers v2 proposal based on feedback from last meeting in Hammamet? Cheers, Chittesh Sham _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. From danielshaw at protonmail.com Wed Dec 12 18:48:38 2018 From: danielshaw at protonmail.com (Daniel Shaw) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 18:48:38 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212030045.127a9648@elandnews.com> References: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> <6.2.5.6.2.20181212030045.127a9648@elandnews.com> Message-ID: ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:08 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > I am interested in your views about what should be the research > priorities. May I suggest that you raise the issue on the members > mailing list? > Why not the community list? The research initiatives may be interesting to non-members in the community too... Regards, Daniel From owen at delong.com Wed Dec 12 19:00:25 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:00:25 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <12057771544436666@iva1-a2ffb02749cf.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: > On Dec 12, 2018, at 02:38 , Chevalier du Borg wrote: > > > > Le mar. 11 d?c. 2018 ? 19:41, Andrew Alston > a ?crit : > If OIF were try to put french citizen people on AFRINIC board, your argument will make sense. It is not. If you have evidence to show it has, please share and tell us how they benefit from it. > > > Actually this claim concerns me more than anything and highlights everything I believe is wrong with this policy in the first place. Firstly it assumes facts not yet in evidence ? because any ?benefit? would assume that > > > > There is sufficient evidence to use this policy against Larus at the request of a member initiated review ? there is no evidence of this > Failing (a) it assumes that Larus will some how come up in ?random? review ? which would be far from random > As regards (a) it assumes that there even if a review were done against Larus that there would be any finding of guilty > > > Since none of those things have been proven nor has any evidence been shown ? and in fact AFRINIC has repeatedly stated that those applications for space were thoroughly reviewed and vetted ? I fail to see how you can claim benefit. > > > > You still avoid how OIF and a member are equivalent. They are not. A member can potentially benefit or suffer from this proposal - not so OIF. That the point. > > > As to everything having been review and ok by AFRINIC, please note that every one of the multinational company that rape this continent usually obey the LETTER of the law. Then make better laws. The review policy won?t solve the problem you have stated here. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Dec 12 19:20:41 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:20:41 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Dec 12, 2018, at 08:33 , Gregoire Ehoumi wrote: > > > The point makes perfect sense. Any organisation holding IP's from AFRINC is only doing so in trust and not their property, It can be recalled back at any time if/when AFRINIC believes that they are not being used for the reasons and purposes for which they were allocated. Especially in this arena where technology and organisations can change. The PDP and this Review policy is just a mean in which AFRINIC can enforce its RSA, specifically Section 4 -C - (iii) Actually, it isn?t. AfriNIC can enforce the RSA without this review policy. This review policy doesn?t enable AfriNIC to do anything AfriNIC can?t already do. What it does do is (potentially) force AfriNIC to take on additional tasks to conduct investigations into reported violations of the RSA to determine whether or not the proffered accusation constitutes credible evidence or not. It places no limits on the number of such investigations which can be forced by disgruntled members of the community. It places no hard limits on the amount of time and effort this may require on the part of resource members defending against such allegations, even if they are found to be baseless except that if a member is put through a ?full review? (which is not well defined in the policy), that member cannot be subjected to such process again for some period of time. > This policy only gives guidelines as to how this can be implemented in a fair and transparent process. How can you or any other African be against this. If a member already goes through an evaluation process when acquiring resources why should the member be opposed to a periodic review. It?s neither fair nor transparent. It?s expensive and burdensome for large organizations while remaining fairly light-weight for small organizations. It?s a wide open vector for those who wish to launch a form of denial of service attack against some member organizations and/or AfriNIC itself. I do not believe anyone has expressed opposition to legitimate periodic review. This proposal isn?t that. This proposal wants to pretend that it is that, but in fact, it is something very different. A carefully engineered attack on larger organizations by smaller ones. > The conflict comes because a particular member is fighting deadly such a proposal and people speaking on their personal capacity and opposing the proposal on the PDP list and at meetings, have work relationship with that member. They are conflicted and so their opinions must be taken into context. You, like the other person who accused me directly of a conflict of interest are mistaken sir. You are mistaken in your definition of conflict of interest and you are mistaken in your belief about how I arrived at my position on this proposal. First, I opposed this proposal well before I began any working relationship with Larus. Second, if I felt this were good policy, even if I thought it would be bad for Larus, I?d be supporting it. In this case, it?s not. Third, to the best of my knowledge, there are several people who have voiced opposition who have no relationship whatsoever with Larus. I can think of at least two other resource members who fit this description and have expressed similar opposition without doing any research, just off the top of my head. In order for a person to have a conflict of interest, several things must be present: 1. They must have a greater level of influence in the policy outcome than any general member of the polity. (e.g. co-chair, board member, etc.) 2. They or their organization must unduly benefit from one particular possible outcome more so than any general other party is likely to. (e.g. a collection of small organizations who believe they are more likely to be able to benefit from reclaimed IP space being available to them for a longer period in the future if the policy passes) In the case of the PDP, having an interest in the outcome of the policy process as a member of the community does not constitute a conflict of interest. In theory, all resource members have some level of interest in the outcome of every PDP. Since all resource members are able to participate on equal footing in the PDP, this interest is not a conflict of interest against their obligations to the community because they do not meet the first test above. Their influence over the PDP is no greater than any other resource member or any other interested person. Further, if your statements claiming that this proposal is a fair and equitable way to conduct reviews were true (it isn?t), then, the second test for conflict would also fail as the proposed policy would then not have an undue benefit or impact on said resource holders beyond what it would have on any other resource holders in the community. So? Yes, the argument about conflicts of interest is non-sensical. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sm+af at afrinic.net Wed Dec 12 19:29:33 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 11:29:33 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: References: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> <6.2.5.6.2.20181212030045.127a9648@elandnews.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212110638.0d66fe20@elandnews.com> Hello, At 10:48 AM 12-12-2018, Daniel Shaw via Community-Discuss wrote: >Why not the community list? The research initiatives may be >interesting to non-members in the community too... The message [1] mentioned that a Resource Member of Afrinic Ltd has never been consulted about research priorities. My suggestion was to discuss about that with the other Resource Members. Research priorities are not the same as research initiatives. It has been the practice [2] to have a call when there is are such initiatives. I would have suggested this mailing list if there was a discussion among researchers about educational opportunities to encourage development in this service region. Regards, S. Moonesamy 1. https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2018-December/002711.html 2. https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/announce/2018/001905.html From danielshaw at protonmail.com Wed Dec 12 19:38:33 2018 From: danielshaw at protonmail.com (Daniel Shaw) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 19:38:33 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212110638.0d66fe20@elandnews.com> References: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> <6.2.5.6.2.20181212030045.127a9648@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20181212110638.0d66fe20@elandnews.com> Message-ID: ??????? Original Message ??????? On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 9:29 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hello, > At 10:48 AM 12-12-2018, Daniel Shaw via Community-Discuss wrote: > > > Why not the community list? The research initiatives may be > > interesting to non-members in the community too... > > The message [1] mentioned that a Resource Member of Afrinic Ltd has > never been consulted about research priorities. Well, considering there are a fair number of resource members, that's not too surprising ;) > My suggestion was to > discuss about that with the other Resource Members. My suggestion is to broaden that. There are many folks that have a stake in resource members in some way or involved with them, but are not the contact person on the member list. I put it to you that the discussion could benefit from more than the member emails on the members list. > > Research priorities are not the same as research initiatives. True. Both could be interesting. > It has > been the practice [2] to have a call when there is are such > initiatives. I would have suggested this mailing list if there was a > discussion among researchers about educational opportunities to > encourage development in this service region. Why? It's not a list specific to educational institutions? Regards, Daniel From sm+af at afrinic.net Wed Dec 12 21:08:08 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 13:08:08 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] How are research projects selected at AFRINIC? In-Reply-To: References: <2104889822.1135546.1544188530223.JavaMail.zimbra@tpra.gov.sd> <6.2.5.6.2.20181212030045.127a9648@elandnews.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20181212110638.0d66fe20@elandnews.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212121011.0dcc22e8@elandnews.com> Hello, At 11:38 AM 12-12-2018, Daniel Shaw via Community-Discuss wrote: >Why? It's not a list specific to educational institutions? Educational opportunities are not specific to educational institutions. My previous comment was about people who showed interest in that topic. Regards, S. Moonesamy From geier at geier.ne.tz Thu Dec 13 04:51:22 2018 From: geier at geier.ne.tz (Frank Habicht) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 07:51:22 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b783953-ffcc-f55f-1754-414a91c1da7e@geier.ne.tz> Hi, inline... On 12/12/2018 22:20, Owen DeLong wrote: > Actually, it isn?t. AfriNIC can enforce the RSA without this review > policy. This review policy doesn?t enable AfriNIC to do anything AfriNIC > can?t already do. Yes. Agree. > What it does do is (potentially) force AfriNIC to take on additional > tasks to conduct investigations into reported violations of the RSA to > determine whether or not the proffered accusation constitutes credible > evidence or not. It places no limits on the number of such > investigations which can be forced by disgruntled members of the > community. It places no hard limits on the amount of time and effort > this may require on the part of resource members defending against such > allegations, even if they are found to be baseless except ?that if a > member is put through a ?full review? (which is not well defined in the > policy), that member cannot be subjected to such process again for some > period of time. Yes. Agree. >> This policy only gives guidelines as to how this can be implemented in >> a fair and transparent process.? How can you or any other African be >> against this. If a member already goes through an evaluation process >> when acquiring resources why should the member be opposed to a >> periodic review. > > It?s neither fair nor transparent. It?s expensive and burdensome for > large organizations while remaining fairly light-weight for small > organizations. It?s a wide open vector for those who wish to launch a > form of denial of service attack against some member organizations > and/or AfriNIC itself. Yes. [snip...] > Third, to the best of my knowledge, there are several people who have > voiced opposition who have no relationship whatsoever with Larus. I can > think of at least two other resource members who fit this description > and have expressed similar opposition without doing any research, just > off the top of my head. I'm one of those unrelated to Larus and expressing opposition. [ hoping Owen counted me. if not: it's personal and we'll take it off-list ;-) ] [snip...] > In the case of the PDP, having an interest in the outcome of the policy > process as a member of the community does not constitute a conflict of > interest. In theory, all resource members have some level of interest in > the outcome of every PDP. Since all resource members are able to > participate on equal footing in the PDP, this interest is not a conflict > of interest against their obligations to the community because they do > not meet the first test above. Their influence over the PDP is no > greater than any other resource member or any other interested person. My level of interest is this: I would like to continue having a working, responsive, RIR for Africa, maintaining some numbers assignments/allocations, in a fair, predictable manner, that should not spend the majority(or a major share) of its resources on auditing members, just because a few have accused others and require audits; and neither should this RIR be at the risk of having to spend these resources, just because of this here discussed policy. oops, are we on the wrong list? Frank From comm-announce at afrinic.net Thu Dec 13 06:56:52 2018 From: comm-announce at afrinic.net (AFRINIC Communication) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:56:52 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Reminder: Complete the consultative survey on the future of the ASO and ICANN Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, This is a reminder to complete the consultative survey on the future of the ASO and ICANN, at : https://survey.afrinic.net/index.php/732247 The short survey contains the key questions from the ASO consultation review at: https://survey.afrinic.net/index.php/732247 Please find some time to respond to the survey, open until 16th December and available in English and French. Some background information on the ASO review at the following links: Announcements, presentations, calls for comments: https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/aso-independent-review-2017/ The ASO Review report: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/aso-review-final-03aug17.pdf Questions posed by the NRO EC: https://www.nro.net/aso-review-consultation-2018/ CEO presentation at the AIS 2018 meeting: https://2018.internetsummit.africa/images/20180511-ASO_Review_Consultation.pdf https://www.afrinic.net/take-the-survey-on-the-aso-consultation-review The survey will close on 16 December 2018 2359 UTC ?????????????????. Chers coll?gues, Ceci est un rappel pour compl?ter le sondage consultatif sur l?avenir de l?ASO et de l?ICANN, ? l?adresse suivante : https://survey.afrinic.net/index.php/732247 Le court sondage contient les questions cl?s de la consultation de l?ASO ? l?adresse : https://survey.afrinic.net/index.php/732247 . Merci de prendre un peu de temps pour r?pondre au sondage, ouvert jusqu'au 16 d?cembre et disponible en anglais et en fran?ais. Quelques informations de base sur l'examen de l'ASO aux liens suivants : Annonces, pr?sentations, appels ? commentaires : https://www.nro.net/about-the-nro/aso-independent-review-2017/ Le rapport d'examen ASO : https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/aso-review-final-03aug17.pdf Questions pos?es par le NRO NC : https://www.nro.net/aso-review-consultation-2018/ Pr?sentation du DG ? la r?union AIS 2018 : https://2018.internetsummit.africa/images/20180511-ASO_Review_Consultation.pdf https://www.afrinic.net/take-the-survey-on-the-aso-consultation-review Le sondage se terminera le 16 d?cembre 2018 ? 2359 UTC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sm+af at afrinic.net Thu Dec 13 08:01:14 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:01:14 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212223253.0b9fb8f8@elandnews.com> Dear Owen, At 11:20 AM 12-12-2018, Owen DeLong wrote: >In order for a person to have a conflict of interest, several things >must be present: > >1.They must have a greater level of influence in the policy outcome >than any general member of the polity. >(e.g. co-chair, board member, etc.) The Resource Members have set a rule about "conflict of interest". There is also something in the policy development document about that. Did you take the relevant laws into consideration for the topic of "conflict of interest"? Regards, S. Moonesamy From owen at delong.com Thu Dec 13 19:38:18 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 11:38:18 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212223253.0b9fb8f8@elandnews.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212223253.0b9fb8f8@elandnews.com> Message-ID: <27858FA2-0443-4E41-A164-4F89765B163C@delong.com> I believe so? Do you believe me to be in error? If so, please point to something that contradicts my statement. Owen > On Dec 13, 2018, at 00:01 , S Moonesamy wrote: > > Dear Owen, > At 11:20 AM 12-12-2018, Owen DeLong wrote: >> In order for a person to have a conflict of interest, several things must be present: >> >> 1.They must have a greater level of influence in the policy outcome than any general member of the polity. >> (e.g. co-chair, board member, etc.) > > The Resource Members have set a rule about "conflict of interest". There is also something in the policy development document about that. Did you take the relevant laws into consideration for the topic of "conflict of interest"? > > Regards, > S. Moonesamy From sm+af at afrinic.net Thu Dec 13 20:11:00 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:11:00 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <27858FA2-0443-4E41-A164-4F89765B163C@delong.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20181212223253.0b9fb8f8@elandnews.com> <27858FA2-0443-4E41-A164-4F89765B163C@delong.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181213120033.0c157ee0@elandnews.com> Dear Owen, At 11:38 AM 13-12-2018, Owen DeLong wrote: >Do you believe me to be in error? If so, please point to something >that contradicts my statement. I don't know whether the statement is correct or not. Regards, S. Moonesamy From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 00:01:52 2018 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (Komi Elitcha) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 00:01:52 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen > Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that > they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or > better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe > the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the > discussion. What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4? space than even countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being consumed? by customers on the continent. With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to? discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the known Individual based out of Africa. Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes to the AfriNIC community? besides sponsoring? newbie students to interfere with PDP. That is where? the problem lays... (*) AFRINIC? stats -- KE https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pEpkey.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 2460 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Sat Dec 15 02:39:46 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:39:46 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha wrote: > > > > Owen >> Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that >> they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or >> better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe >> the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the >> discussion. > What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being consumed by customers on the continent. If your statements are true (they aren?t), then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued? > With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the known Individual based out of Africa. Again, more assertions without evidence. > Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes to the AfriNIC community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere with PDP. OK? I get it that you don?t like Larus. Nonetheless, While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions don?t match reality, I am not bought and paid for by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with their holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus. > That is where the problem lays? This is where you think the problem lies. I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued is part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit of an agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of this policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is? An attack on large resource members by another portion of the community. Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the review policy. Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations affiliated with voices opposing this proposal. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 20:11:47 2018 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (Komi Elitcha) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:11:47 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: <6166aead-5881-0d3c-65cf-9a1ff48eaa99@gmail.com> Owen, Le 15/12/2018 ? 02:39, Owen DeLong a ?crit?: > > >> On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Owen >>> Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that >>> they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or >>> better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe >>> the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the >>> discussion. >> What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR >> membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4? space than even >> countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no >> real Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services >> being consumed? by customers on the continent. > > If your statements are true (they aren?t), You keep asking for evidence, but fail to prove that the statements are false. These statements are based on public data, and it looks like you don't really know your "employer"'s IPv4 portfolio. > then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued? I don't answer for AfriNIC staff, but community trust AfriNIC? to always make the right decisions when allocating resources and also trust them, to do the due diligence to insure usage are compliant, if not or if resources have been obtained fraudulently, to act appropriately. > >> With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute >> to? discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings >> except the known Individual based out of Africa. > > Again, more assertions without evidence. It should have been easy for Larus and its employees to show evidence of network which matches the 6 million addresses. What we see is? just an LIR with huge IPv4 from AFRINIC, no ASN, no IPv6, marketing? IPv4 delegation services worldwide > >> Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help >> protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the >> review policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really >> contributes to the AfriNIC community? besides sponsoring? newbie >> students to interfere with PDP. > > OK? I get it that you don?t like Larus. Nonetheless, it is not about "like" or not a resource member. AFRINIC, LIRs and end-users members share same responsibilities on good management of? resources and must behave appropriately. > While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions > don?t match ?reality, Which assertions ? > I am not bought and paid for > by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with > their holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. > > My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last > June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have > expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its > inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any > connection whatsoever to Larus. Why do you keep repeating this statement? about your work relationship to Larus? In our African culture, repeating statements like this, does show? that? something is worrying you. We know your record on ?*vaporware*?? till now... > >> That is where? the problem lays? > > This is where you think the problem lies. > > I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus > uses their addresses in violation of the policies under which they > were issued is part of where the problem lies. I think that the > single-minded pursuit of an agenda against a single resource member by > most of the proponents of this policy is beginning to show this policy > for what it truly is? An attack on large resource members by another > portion of the community. > > Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to > the review policy. > > Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. > > Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main > target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the > proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many > organizations affiliated with voices opposing this proposal. The review policy proposal applies to all members as stated clearly in the text. All AfriNIC members are supposed to pass review or get help to improve usability. Larus's behaviour in opposing? the review proposal by all means, only drag more attention to them! Other objectors have brought relevant objections which were discussed and addressed. We are only left with, objections like: - AFRINIC is just? bookkeeper? and has no right to review members - AFRINIC is a $4 million organization and will not stand in court in front of big members - The review policy allow DDoS attacks from small members to the big members - This policy is not needed as RSA already has provision for review. - Members buy resources and AFRINIC can't recall them - etc?. > > Owen > -- KE https://www.linkedin.com/in/komi-elitcha/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pEpkey.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 2460 bytes Desc: not available URL: From owen at delong.com Mon Dec 17 04:23:30 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 20:23:30 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <6166aead-5881-0d3c-65cf-9a1ff48eaa99@gmail.com> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <6166aead-5881-0d3c-65cf-9a1ff48eaa99@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On Dec 16, 2018, at 12:11 , Komi Elitcha wrote: > > Owen, > > Le 15/12/2018 ? 02:39, Owen DeLong a ?crit : >> >> >>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Owen >>>> Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that >>>> they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or >>>> better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe >>>> the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the >>>> discussion. >>> What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being consumed by customers on the continent. >> >> If your statements are true (they aren?t), > You keep asking for evidence, but fail to prove that the statements are false. These statements are based on public data, and it looks like you don't really know your "employer"'s IPv4 portfolio. First, Larus is NOT my employer. Larus has never been my employer. I have done some (small) contract work for Larus on specific projects. Second, the burden of proof on an unfounded accusation is on the accuser, not on those who disbelieve the accuser. Third, I don?t believe that Larus holds 6 million IPv4 addresses issued by AfriNIC. The public data does not show that they do as near as I can tell. Please, I beg of you, provide reference to the public records which show that Larus holds 6 million IPv4 addresses. Please So, please either present some credible evidence that there is some reason to believe that Larus would fail a review under the proposed policy, or admit you don?t have any. Frankly, since Larus doesn?t appear to hold any IPv4 addresses at all, I think this will be a very difficult thing for you to do, but good luck! >> then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued? > I don't answer for AfriNIC staff, but community trust AfriNIC to always make the right decisions when allocating resources and also trust them, to do the due diligence to insure usage are compliant, if not or if resources have been obtained fraudulently, to act appropriately. OK, then you agree with me that the review policy is unnecessary. AfriNIC is already doing this and the community trusts that they are doing their job. Therefore, the addresses which AfriNIC has repeatedly stated were issued to Larus within policy and after performing (more than usual, IIRC) due diligence on their requests. >>> With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the known Individual based out of Africa. >> >> Again, more assertions without evidence. > > It should have been easy for Larus and its employees to show evidence of network which matches the 6 million addresses. > What we see is just an LIR with huge IPv4 from AFRINIC, no ASN, no IPv6, marketing IPv4 delegation services worldwide Well? On review of the public record, it appears to me that Larus does not hold 6 million AfriNIC IPv4 addresses. Contorting the PDP to try and organize a witch hunt against a single resource member is simply wrong. Especially when one considers the unintended consequences and extreme costs associated with the likely outcome of the proposal if it were to become policy. (I?m not talking about the costs to AfriNIC, but the costs to the resource members who get subjected to repetitive inquiries under this policy because some random member of the community decides they want to use AfriNIC to harass them.) >>> Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes to the AfriNIC community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere with PDP. >> >> OK? I get it that you don?t like Larus. Nonetheless, > > it is not about "like" or not a resource member. AFRINIC, LIRs and end-users members share same responsibilities on good management of resources and must behave appropriately. Well, it?s true that Larus is a resource member of AfriNIC (specifically the Seychelles Subsidiary of Larus Cloud Service which is also called ?Larus Cloud Service?. This subsidiary holds a /22 of IPv4 from AfriNIC, which is 1024 IPv4 addresses, not 6 million. Given that it?s not exactly difficult to use 1024 addresses in a relatively small office, I?m hard pressed to think that you?re going to find a significant waste of resources there. What obligations do you feel that Larus is not living up to here with their 1024 addresses? >> While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions don?t match reality, > > Which assertions ? You assert that they hold 6 million IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC. You assert that they did not comply with policy when they obtained their space. You assert that they are holding more resources than they should be entitled to. You assert that they have no operations in Africa. You assert that they have no staff in Africa. Each of those assertions is actually false. >> I am not bought and paid for >> by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with their holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. >> >> My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus. > > Why do you keep repeating this statement about your work relationship to Larus? > In our African culture, repeating statements like this, does show that something is worrying you. Because you keep repeating the accusation that my opinion is somehow for sale. I am offended by this ad hominem attack and each time it is reasserted, I will defend myself. In my culture, letting an unfounded accusation stand leads to people believing that you are granting it tacit agreement. > We know your record on ?vaporware? till now? Really, you want to bring up a comment from nearly a year before AfriNIC issued it?s first resource again? Dude, that was more than 13 years ago? A lot has changed since then, including AfriNIC becoming more than vaporware. >>> That is where the problem lays? >> >> This is where you think the problem lies. >> >> I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued is part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit of an agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of this policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is? An attack on large resource members by another portion of the community. >> >> Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the review policy. >> >> Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. >> >> Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations affiliated with voices opposing this proposal. > > The review policy proposal applies to all members as stated clearly in the text. All AfriNIC members are supposed to pass review or get help to improve usability. Sure, except that the burden of the review process scales faster than linearly with organization size and network complexity. > Larus's behaviour in opposing the review proposal by all means, only drag more attention to them! I don?t see Larus using any means to oppose this procedure that have not been used by other organizations as well. > Other objectors have brought relevant objections which were discussed and addressed. We are only left with, objections like: > - AFRINIC is just bookkeeper and has no right to review members I don?t think you?ve ever seen me make this objection. > - AFRINIC is a $4 million organization and will not stand in court in front of big members Nor this one. > - The review policy allow DDoS attacks from small members to the big members You are misquoting me here as well. I said ?DoS?, not ?DDoS?. > - This policy is not needed as RSA already has provision for review. This is true and is a valid objection to the proposal. > - Members buy resources and AFRINIC can't recall them I don?t think you?ve ever seen me make this assertion in any form. > - etc?. Yes, you conveniently left out some significant etc. - The proposal would have a disproportionate negative impact on larger more complex networks. - The proposal uses a number of terms which are not well defined in the proposal or the policy manual, such as ?full review? and depending on the interpretation of these terms, could have radically different levels of burden or very different impacts on the community. I suspect there are others, but I?d have to go back through the archives and I don?t have time to do that right now. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net Tue Dec 18 05:57:58 2018 From: Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net (Omo Oaiya) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 06:57:58 +0100 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: <4F7BEB66-2872-4607-B8C2-49BF01A4220A@wacren.net> > On 15 Dec 2018, at 03:39, Owen DeLong wrote: > > My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus. Owen, Your spirited defence of Larus and the revelation that you have been employed by same organisation piqued my interest so I reviewed the record as you suggested. Anyone is allowed to change their minds. The records show that you initially supported the proposal, changed your position along the line, and became vehemently opposed to it thereafter. Here is what I found in the archives: 18 May 2016 - v1.0 of the proposal was submitted 24 May 2016 - You point to ARIN review policy when there are comments about implementation impact on AFRINIC and queries if any other RIR had done this before. > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > > > On May 23, 2016, at 11:30 , Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > > > Comments are in line.... > > > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Nishal Goburdhan < > > nishal at controlfreak.co.za > wrote: > > > > ok, so using that logic, can is there another RIR that has successfully > >> shown, how this can be done? the case across the world, seems to be that > >> this is too much effort, for too little gain. so, honestly, unless there?s > >> some magician that can show how/why this is likely to be different in > >> africa, it?s reasonable to assume that this is also going to be the case > >> here. > >> as a paying member, i want afrinic - using its limited resources - to > >> prioritise that, which will take us forward. > >> > > > > I refer you to ARIN NRPM section 12. > > > > Owen https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005484.html At this time, you appear to be positively disposed to the proposal and I find email below where you actually express your support when there seems to be a misunderstanding of your ?IPv4 is dead? claim. From the text, it even seems that I may have missed other mails supporting for the policy. > > On Jun 1, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > > > > I?ve already expressed support for this policy. I?ve already expressed support for keeping AfriNIC resources for Africa. > > > > I?ve done so on numerous occasions. > > > > So I am really not sure what point you are trying to make to me. > > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005530.html Fast-forward a year later to July 2017, by which time the proposal has reached last call for the first time. It is now at v3.0 and the tone of your messages begin to change up to the point that I feel you are obstructing the Co-chairs and adding to the confusion. > On 10 July 2017 at 23:18, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > Sami, > > > > The final legal feedback notwithstanding, I think there has been more than > > enough negative feedback in this last call to make it quite clear that this > > policy does NOT have consensus at this time and I urge the co-chairs to > > remand it to the authors and the list for further refinement or abandonment > > rather than leaving it in last call status. There is no reason for last > > call to be maintained beyond the point where clearly the policy has no > > consensus as is and will need substantial revision. It only confuses the > > community. > > > > Owen > > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007169.html By now, you are very vocal and have issues with the proposal you had previously supported and improved with community input to reach last call at v3.0. You become a champion for its opposition. > On 11 Jul 2017, at 18:39, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I am not opposed to the concept of resource reviews? In fact, the policy in section 12 of the ARIN NRPM to which you refer below was originally proposed and authored by yours truly and subsequently modified by a group of people prior to becoming ARIN policy. > > I fully support the idea, the concept, and a proper implementation. > > However, the dichotomy between the above idea of a proper implementation and what is proposed in AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 is so severe that many people have raised substantive objections. > > What I find most interesting about this is that despite the repeated raising of these same objections to this proposal, the proponents choose to hand waive, point to policies at other RIRs (which, btw, lack the very flaws being pointed out in this proposal) and attempt to shout down the opposition without actually making any indication that the objections have been considered, let alone any effort to actually address said objections. > > Owen https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007185.html It is difficult to understand your failure to contribute to the proposal so it meets your nebulous idea of a ?proper implementation? considering your experience with the ARIN proposal. The proposal kept on evolving nonetheless, up to v6.0, addressing valid objections and comments from legal and staff. In recent discussions, you disclosed (and repeated) that you have worked for Larus (who vigorously opposes the proposal and has done from inception) but claim that this does not influence your position. According to you, this Larus work started just before the Dakar meeting in April 2018 and your opposition predates your employment. Only you and Larus know exactly when you started but the evidence in the archives show that you only became diametrically opposed to the policy midstream and your claim of opposition from the start is untrue. I also recall challenging another of your contradictory claims in the past and see a pattern here. To the PDWG and Co-Chairs, Given the *actual* sequence of events in the archives, how credible is Owen DeLong?s opposition to the review proposal and call for its withdrawal? On a broader note, how do we process such contributions in general in the PDP, from Owen or anyone else, now and in the future, if we cannot trust their motivation? Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From saul at enetworks.co.za Tue Dec 18 07:21:01 2018 From: saul at enetworks.co.za (Saul Stein) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 09:21:01 +0200 (SAST) Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <4F7BEB66-2872-4607-B8C2-49BF01A4220A@wacren.net> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <4F7BEB66-2872-4607-B8C2-49BF01A4220A@wacren.net> Message-ID: <1a8201d496a2$3a72fdf0$af58f9d0$@enetworks.co.za> Hi Instead of this mudslinging match / personal witch hunt, which has no place on this (or any) mailing list and clogging up our inboxes, perhaps this energy could be better put to addressing the communities concerns about this proposal. Saul From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net] Sent: 18 December 2018 07:58 AM To: Owen DeLong Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - On 15 Dec 2018, at 03:39, Owen DeLong > wrote: My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus. Owen, Your spirited defence of Larus and the revelation that you have been employed by same organisation piqued my interest so I reviewed the record as you suggested. Anyone is allowed to change their minds. The records show that you initially supported the proposal, changed your position along the line, and became vehemently opposed to it thereafter. Here is what I found in the archives: 18 May 2016 - v1.0 of the proposal was submitted 24 May 2016 - You point to ARIN review policy when there are comments about implementation impact on AFRINIC and queries if any other RIR had done this before. On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > On May 23, 2016, at 11:30 , Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > Comments are in line.... > > On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Nishal Goburdhan < > nishal at controlfreak.co.za > > wrote: > > ok, so using that logic, can is there another RIR that has successfully >> shown, how this can be done? the case across the world, seems to be that >> this is too much effort, for too little gain. so, honestly, unless there?s >> some magician that can show how/why this is likely to be different in >> africa, it?s reasonable to assume that this is also going to be the case >> here. >> as a paying member, i want afrinic - using its limited resources - to >> prioritise that, which will take us forward. >> > > I refer you to ARIN NRPM section 12. > > Owen https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005484.html At this time, you appear to be positively disposed to the proposal and I find email below where you actually express your support when there seems to be a misunderstanding of your ?IPv4 is dead? claim. >From the text, it even seems that I may have missed other mails supporting for the policy. > On Jun 1, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong > wrote: > > > I?ve already expressed support for this policy. I?ve already expressed > support for keeping AfriNIC resources for Africa. > > I?ve done so on numerous occasions. > > So I am really not sure what point you are trying to make to me. > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005530.html Fast-forward a year later to July 2017, by which time the proposal has reached last call for the first time. It is now at v3.0 and the tone of your messages begin to change up to the point that I feel you are obstructing the Co-chairs and adding to the confusion. On 10 July 2017 at 23:18, Owen DeLong > wrote: > Sami, > > The final legal feedback notwithstanding, I think there has been more than > enough negative feedback in this last call to make it quite clear that > this > policy does NOT have consensus at this time and I urge the co-chairs to > remand it to the authors and the list for further refinement or > abandonment > rather than leaving it in last call status. There is no reason for last > call to be maintained beyond the point where clearly the policy has no > consensus as is and will need substantial revision. It only confuses the > community. > > Owen > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007169.html By now, you are very vocal and have issues with the proposal you had previously supported and improved with community input to reach last call at v3.0. You become a champion for its opposition. On 11 Jul 2017, at 18:39, Owen DeLong > wrote: I am not opposed to the concept of resource reviews? In fact, the policy in section 12 of the ARIN NRPM to which you refer below was originally proposed and authored by yours truly and subsequently modified by a group of people prior to becoming ARIN policy. I fully support the idea, the concept, and a proper implementation. However, the dichotomy between the above idea of a proper implementation and what is proposed in AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 is so severe that many people have raised substantive objections. What I find most interesting about this is that despite the repeated raising of these same objections to this proposal, the proponents choose to hand waive, point to policies at other RIRs (which, btw, lack the very flaws being pointed out in this proposal) and attempt to shout down the opposition without actually making any indication that the objections have been considered, let alone any effort to actually address said objections. Owen https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007185.html It is difficult to understand your failure to contribute to the proposal so it meets your nebulous idea of a ?proper implementation? considering your experience with the ARIN proposal. The proposal kept on evolving nonetheless, up to v6.0, addressing valid objections and comments from legal and staff. In recent discussions, you disclosed (and repeated) that you have worked for Larus (who vigorously opposes the proposal and has done from inception) but claim that this does not influence your position. According to you, this Larus work started just before the Dakar meeting in April 2018 and your opposition predates your employment. Only you and Larus know exactly when you started but the evidence in the archives show that you only became diametrically opposed to the policy midstream and your claim of opposition from the start is untrue. I also recall challenging another of your contradictory claims in the past and see a pattern here. To the PDWG and Co-Chairs, Given the *actual* sequence of events in the archives, how credible is Owen DeLong?s opposition to the review proposal and call for its withdrawal? On a broader note, how do we process such contributions in general in the PDP, from Owen or anyone else, now and in the future, if we cannot trust their motivation? Omo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 07:48:59 2018 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (Komi Elitcha) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 07:48:59 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, The association between larus, cloud innovation and outsideHeaven has been shared on this list before - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007352.html Curiously, you always have strong opinions about policy proposals, but never have time to look archives to clarify important points or propose amendments. This is not constructive considering the volume of your contributions especially as you come from another region. It is even worse when viewed in the context of Afrinic region where every little progress is treasured development. You have been arguing about objections that have not been addressed and I find it bizarre that you could not find them....despite my efforts to provide you an initial list. Komi Le sam. 15 d?c. 2018 ? 2:41 AM, Owen DeLong a ?crit : > > > On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha wrote: > > > > Owen > > Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that > they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or > better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe > the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the > discussion. > > What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR > membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even > countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real > Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being > consumed by customers on the continent. > > > If your statements are true (they aren?t), then how did AfriNIC approve > such numbers being issued? > > With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to > discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the > known Individual based out of Africa. > > > Again, more assertions without evidence. > > Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help > protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review > policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes > to the AfriNIC community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere > with PDP. > > > OK? I get it that you don?t like Larus. Nonetheless, While I have worked > with Larus and I know that some of your assertions don?t match reality, I > am not bought and paid for > by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with > their holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. > > My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. > You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed > objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well > before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection > whatsoever to Larus. > > That is where the problem lays? > > > This is where you think the problem lies. > > I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses > their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued > is part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit > of an agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of > this policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is? An > attack on large resource members by another portion of the community. > > Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the > review policy. > > Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. > > Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main > target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the > proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations > affiliated with voices opposing this proposal. > > Owen > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Tue Dec 18 08:01:26 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 08:01:26 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: You know what amuses me about this whole thread. One of the concerns raised about this policy ? time and again ? is that it would be used to selectively target people. Then ? we were told that wasn?t the case ? and the policy was made to refer to random selection and evidence base etc. Yet what I am reading here ? is people deliberately ? in the context of this proposal ? going after one company ? with zero evidence to back up any of their claims that the allocation was or wasn?t legitimate, and despite the fact that the application had to be granted in the context of the IPv4 policy ? which means the host masters would have checked the application. So ? is this policy actually what I have always feared ? a tool to be used to go on witch hunts with no hard evidence that anyone wants to make public? Or are we saying that we don?t trust the host masters when they allocation space to do their checks correctly? If it?s the latter ? how do you propose to deal with the fact that if they couldn?t get the allocation right ? what makes you think they can audit correctly? (And I am in no way saying that the allocation wasn?t legitimate, or that they screwed up, I am not privy to those application documents to know ? and neither is anyone else here) But basically ? this thread ? is progressively proving that one of my (and other peoples) major concerns about this policy were dead on target ? that some individuals are attempting to pass a policy to go after things they don?t feel are correct ? whats next ? going after the next guy who disagrees with you ? or argues with you? I started this email saying it amuses me ? the fact that the fears are being shown to be very correct is amusing ? at the same time ? its horrifying to see the policy process abused in this manner. Andrew From: Komi Elitcha Sent: 18 December 2018 10:49 To: Owen DeLong Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Owen, The association between larus, cloud innovation and outsideHeaven has been shared on this list before - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007352.html Curiously, you always have strong opinions about policy proposals, but never have time to look archives to clarify important points or propose amendments. This is not constructive considering the volume of your contributions especially as you come from another region. It is even worse when viewed in the context of Afrinic region where every little progress is treasured development. You have been arguing about objections that have not been addressed and I find it bizarre that you could not find them....despite my efforts to provide you an initial list. Komi Le sam. 15 d?c. 2018 ? 2:41 AM, Owen DeLong > a ?crit : On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha > wrote: Owen Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the discussion. What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being consumed by customers on the continent. If your statements are true (they aren?t), then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued? With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the known Individual based out of Africa. Again, more assertions without evidence. Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes to the AfriNIC community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere with PDP. OK? I get it that you don?t like Larus. Nonetheless, While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions don?t match reality, I am not bought and paid for by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with their holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus. That is where the problem lays? This is where you think the problem lies. I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued is part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit of an agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of this policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is? An attack on large resource members by another portion of the community. Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the review policy. Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations affiliated with voices opposing this proposal. Owen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 11:15:41 2018 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:15:41 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:03 AM Andrew Alston wrote: > > You know what amuses me about this whole thread. > > One of the concerns raised about this policy ? time and again ? is that it would be used to selectively target people. Yes. This is a real issue. A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and victimizing is very, very bad. AUTHORS, please do everyone a favor and let this proposal disappear from here. It is creating mostly sad vibes. J > Then ? we were told that wasn?t the case ? and the policy was made to refer to random selection and evidence base etc. > > Yet what I am reading here ? is people deliberately ? in the context of this proposal ? going after one company ? with zero evidence to back up any of their claims that the allocation was or wasn?t legitimate, and despite the fact that the application had to be granted in the context of the IPv4 policy ? which means the host masters would have checked the application. > > > > So ? is this policy actually what I have always feared ? a tool to be used to go on witch hunts with no hard evidence that anyone wants to make public? Or are we saying that we don?t trust the host masters when they allocation space to do their checks correctly? If it?s the latter ? how do you propose to deal with the fact that if they couldn?t get the allocation right ? what makes you think they can audit correctly? (And I am in no way saying that the allocation wasn?t legitimate, or that they screwed up, I am not privy to those application documents to know ? and neither is anyone else here) > > > > But basically ? this thread ? is progressively proving that one of my (and other peoples) major concerns about this policy were dead on target ? that some individuals are attempting to pass a policy to go after things they don?t feel are correct ? whats next ? going after the next guy who disagrees with you ? or argues with you? > > > > I started this email saying it amuses me ? the fact that the fears are being shown to be very correct is amusing ? at the same time ? its horrifying to see the policy process abused in this manner. > > > > Andrew > > > > > > From: Komi Elitcha > Sent: 18 December 2018 10:49 > To: Owen DeLong > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - > > > > Owen, > > > > The association between larus, cloud innovation and outsideHeaven has been shared on this list before - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007352.html > > > > Curiously, you always have strong opinions about policy proposals, but never have time to look archives to clarify important points or propose amendments. > > > > This is not constructive considering the volume of your contributions especially as you come from another region. It is even worse when viewed in the context of Afrinic region where every little progress is treasured development. > > > > You have been arguing about objections that have not been addressed and I find it bizarre that you could not find them....despite my efforts to provide you an initial list. > > > > Komi > > > > Le sam. 15 d?c. 2018 ? 2:41 AM, Owen DeLong a ?crit : > > > > > > On Dec 14, 2018, at 16:01 , Komi Elitcha wrote: > > > > > > > > Owen > > Larus is a resource holder like any other resource holder. The fact that > > they are a large resource holder does not make them any worse or > > better than any other resource holder, so I?m not sure why you believe > > the number of IPv4 addresses they hold have any bearing on the > > discussion. > > What make Larus singular is that this organization through an LIR membership, holds 6 million IPv4 space, more IPv4 space than even countries like Nigeria, Kenya and Algeria (*). The same Larus has no real Internet infrastructure on-continent nor any serious services being consumed by customers on the continent. > > > > If your statements are true (they aren?t), then how did AfriNIC approve such numbers being issued? > > > > With NO network, lack of local staff in Africa that could contribute to discussions on Afrinic list or even attend AfriNIC meetings except the known Individual based out of Africa. > > > > Again, more assertions without evidence. > > > > Therefore besides contracting individual mercenaries to visibly help protect and defend the huge IPv4 pool it holds, by opposing the review policy by all means, one would wonder what value Larus really contributes to the AfriNIC community besides sponsoring newbie students to interfere with PDP. > > > > OK? I get it that you don?t like Larus. Nonetheless, While I have worked with Larus and I know that some of your assertions don?t match reality, I am not bought and paid for > > by Laurs and my opposition to the review policy has nothing to do with their holdings or the fact that Larus also opposes the review policy. > > > > My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever to Larus. > > > > That is where the problem lays? > > > > This is where you think the problem lies. > > > > I think that your baseless accusations and your assumption that Larus uses their addresses in violation of the policies under which they were issued is part of where the problem lies. I think that the single-minded pursuit of an agenda against a single resource member by most of the proponents of this policy is beginning to show this policy for what it truly is? An attack on large resource members by another portion of the community. > > > > Larus is a convenient target, but they are not the only opposition to the review policy. > > > > Multiple people with no association to Larus have expressed opposition. > > > > Review the archives. While your above admission that Larus is the main target of this policy is enlightening regarding the motives of the proponents, the reality is that Larus is just one of many organizations affiliated with voices opposing this proposal. > > > > Owen > > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From benjamin.eshun at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 20:37:48 2018 From: benjamin.eshun at gmail.com (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:37:48 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: Jackson, Just a simple question. On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: > > A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and > victimizing is very, very bad. > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry out ?very very bad?? For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in the proposed policy. ** extract ** 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected according to the following classes: 13.3.1 Random The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. 13.3.2 Selected Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of contact between the AFRINIC and the member. 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: A) They have requested the review themselves or B) There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this review is not applicable to a member with the same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months. AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. *end of extract *** Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from the community and its members in general. I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just left to the good intensions of the community and members. Benjamin From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 20:56:05 2018 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 23:56:05 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:38 PM Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > Jackson, > > Just a simple question. > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: > > > > A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and > > victimizing is very, very bad. > > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry > out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry > out ?very very bad?? It has produced a very unhealthy discussion climate full of name calling, personal attacks, racist connotation to name but a few. For me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications properly explained. J From boubakarbarry at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 21:14:03 2018 From: boubakarbarry at gmail.com (Boubakar Barry) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 21:14:03 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:56 PM Jackson Muthili wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:38 PM Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > > > Jackson, > > > > Just a simple question. > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili > wrote: > > > > > > A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and > > > victimizing is very, very bad. > > > > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry > > out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry > > out ?very very bad?? > > It has produced a very unhealthy discussion climate full of name > calling, personal attacks, racist connotation to name but a few. Created by whom? I don't support any personal attack, not even thinking of supporting racial ones. This has no place in this community. However, shall we keep quite and see how Africa is ripped off its resources just because some are shouting that this is discriminatory, etc.? The way I see some of the contributions here is that AFRINIC staff doesn't have the competency and integrity to carry out reviews on the use of resources. Resources are given out for the advancement of the Internet and for socio-economic development in Africa. So, why oppose checks for the custodians of the IP resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the purpose they have been allocated to us? Boubakar For > me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this > proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications > properly explained. > > J > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Wed Dec 19 03:19:10 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 19:19:10 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> It is the reported class which is the main sticking point here. Anyone who has worked for a large organization with a complex network will see the obvious opportunity for abuse here. Without that category in the proposed policy, AfriNIC has the discretion to follow up on a report if the find it credible. The proposed policy would shift that to a burden for AfriNIC to disprove the credibility of any report they declined to investigate. That?s a major change and one which the proponents have made it quite clear they intend to use as a tool to attack certain resource members. (I?ll note at least one opponent has expressed the possibility of using that same tool against a proponent should this proposal become policy). When I initially expressed some support for this proposal, either it lacked this provision or I had not fully understood the implications of it. Coming to understand that was a major factor in my switch to strong opposition. The blatant expression of the proponents of their intent to use this as a tool to force AfriNIC to attack certain organizations on their behalf was another major factor. Now the proponents will claim that an audit is not an attack, but the reality is that absent substantial evidence of wrongdoing, such a review of a network of any significant size and/or complexity is a costly and time-consuming process. I?ve done these types of reviews for organizations internally as a consultant, so I know first hand what kind of resources and how long they can take. Please believe me when I say that it is non-trivial and that the cost scales non-linearly with the size and complexity of the network. Owen > On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:37, Benjamin Eshun wrote: > > Jackson, > > Just a simple question. > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: >> >> A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and >> victimizing is very, very bad. >> > > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry > out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry > out ?very very bad?? > > For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in > the proposed policy. > > ** extract ** > > 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected > according to the following classes: > > 13.3.1 Random > > The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. > > 13.3.2 Selected > > Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of > contact between the AFRINIC and the member. > > 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > A) They have requested the review themselves or > > B) There has been a community complaint made against them that > warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and > AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the > review. However this review is not applicable to a member with the > same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in > the preceding 24 months. > > AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the > nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that > such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or > (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. > > *end of extract *** > > Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its > responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its > powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and > stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from the community > and its members in general. > > I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best > intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just > left to the good intensions of the community and members. > > Benjamin > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From jacksonmuthi at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 04:37:53 2018 From: jacksonmuthi at gmail.com (Jackson Muthili) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 07:37:53 +0300 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 12:14 AM Boubakar Barry wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:56 PM Jackson Muthili wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:38 PM Benjamin Eshun >> wrote: >> > >> > Jackson, >> > >> > Just a simple question. >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: >> > > >> > > A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and >> > > victimizing is very, very bad. >> > >> > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry >> > out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry >> > out ?very very bad?? >> >> It has produced a very unhealthy discussion climate full of name >> calling, personal attacks, racist connotation to name but a few. > > Created by whom? I don't support any personal attack, not even thinking of supporting racial ones. This has no place in this community. > > However, shall we keep quite and see how Africa is ripped off its resources just because some are shouting that this is discriminatory, etc.? > > The way I see some of the contributions here is that AFRINIC staff doesn't have the competency and integrity to carry out reviews on the use of resources. > > Resources are given out for the advancement of the Internet and for socio-economic development in Africa. So, why oppose checks for the custodians of the IP resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the purpose they have been allocated to us? clearly nobody is against the general idea of the custodians of the IP resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the purpose they have been allocated to us as you put it. it is the how. for as long as the proposed process is prone to abuse, sorry it cant fly. by the way, is there anything stopping AfriNIC to carry out audit as allowed through registration service agreement (rsa)? if no, why are we even having this discussion?? J > > Boubakar > >> For >> me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this >> proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications >> properly explained. >> >> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss From virtual.borg at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 05:19:15 2018 From: virtual.borg at gmail.com (Chevalier du Borg) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:19:15 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: Hello all Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 08:40, Jackson Muthili a ?crit : > > > clearly nobody is against the general idea of the custodians of the IP > resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the > purpose they have been allocated to us as you put it. > > it is the how. > > for as long as the proposed process is prone to abuse, sorry it cant fly. > > by the way, is there anything stopping AfriNIC to carry out audit as > allowed through registration service agreement (rsa)? if no, why are > we even having this discussion?? > Thank you very much M. Jackson. I think we should not try to use policy where process is what is need. Since no person disagree that it is part of AFRINIC job, then it should publish a clear process that they use to do review. The existence of this policy seem to mean community don't trust that such process exist and better communication may solve that. My first reason for start this thread is more about our PDP being broke and need to be fix to protect it from hijack some large entity. Larus particularly consern me because it say on their website, under one of their product "IP DELEGATION SERVICE" ( https://www.laruscloudservice.net/ip-delegation-service) <> i Are we sure these IP are not part of what Larus get from AFRINIC? ii If it is, is that accepted use of IP according to RSA iii How does company that have IP to sell justify needing more address? These are thing that make me (and other people) concern and good answer to them will make thing clear for this community. > > J > > > > > > > > > > Boubakar > > > >> For > >> me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this > >> proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications > >> properly explained. > >> > >> J > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sm+af at afrinic.net Wed Dec 19 06:37:29 2018 From: sm+af at afrinic.net (S Moonesamy) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 22:37:29 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <7b783953-ffcc-f55f-1754-414a91c1da7e@geier.ne.tz> References: <7b783953-ffcc-f55f-1754-414a91c1da7e@geier.ne.tz> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20181218220052.0ba5b1a8@elandnews.com> Dear Frank, At 08:51 PM 12-12-2018, Frank Habicht wrote: >My level of interest is this: >I would like to continue having a working, responsive, RIR for >Africa, maintaining some numbers assignments/allocations, in a fair, >predictable manner, that should not spend the majority(or a major >share) of its resources on auditing members, just because a few have >accused others and require audits; and neither should this RIR be at >the risk of having to spend these resources, just because of this >here discussed policy. The RIR does more than maintaining assignments or allocations for number resources. One of the services available is a database of routing policy information. >oops, are we on the wrong list? It might be better to discuss about policy proposals in the working group as that is where the discussions usually happen. Regards, S. Moonesamy From comm-announce at afrinic.net Wed Dec 19 07:29:48 2018 From: comm-announce at afrinic.net (AFRINIC Communication) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 11:29:48 +0400 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Reminder: Take the 2018 AFRINIC Stakeholders Survey Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, As part of our ongoing effort to improve our services, we invite you to participate in the 2018 AFRINIC Stakeholders survey, open from 16 October - 31 December 2018.. The survey will seek to understand our membership and community perceptions and expectations on AFRINIC services and operations. Please take the survey by clicking on the link here: https://surveys.dcdmresearch.com/index.php/686434?lang=en . The survey contains 38 questions and should take 20-25 minutes to complete. The survey will be conducted by an independent research organization, DCDM Research in line with the GDPR and 2017 Mauritius Data Protection Act guidelines. Your feedback is extremely valuable and will help us to improve our ability to serve you. We look forward to your participation. Sincerely, AFRINIC Team ????????????????????????????????? Chers coll?gues, Dans le cadre de notre volont? d?am?lioration continue de nos services, nous sollicitons votre participation active dans le sondage ''AFRINIC Stakeholders 2018'', du 16 Octobre au 31 D?cembre 2018. L?enqu?te vise ? mieux comprendre les perceptions et les attentes de nos membres et de la communaut? ? l??gard des services et op?rations d?AFRINIC. Nous vous prions de trouver le questionnaire du sondage en cliquant sur le lien - https://surveys.dcdmresearch.com/index.php/686434?lang=fr . Le questionnaire contient 38 questions et vous prendra entre 20 et 25 minutes. Le sondage sera men? par un organisme de recherche ind?pendant, DCDM Research., conform?ment aux directives du RGPD et du 2017 Mauritius Data Protection Act. Vos r?ponses ? ce sondage nous seront fortes utiles et pr?cieuses en vue d?am?liorer le niveau de notre prestation de services. Vous remerciant d?avance pour votre participation. Cordialement, L?Equipe d'AFRINIC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Wed Dec 19 09:01:22 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 09:01:22 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> Message-ID: Just for clarity ? If space was allocated before the soft landing policy came into force ? there was no policy whatsoever that prohibited off continent use of space ? so ? if you got space from AFRINIC ? under the allocation policies ? you could use it off continent If an African registered company had every piece of infrastructure off continent ? nothing would stop them getting space and using it globally ? that changed with the soft landing coming into force ? but allocations before that? Didn?t matter. The soft landing policy also was not retro-active ? so the restrictions on it only apply to space allocated since it came into force. What the policy *does* say is that space must be used in the manner described in the initial application. Now ? that?s where things get real interesting. Firstly ? there is no guidance as to how strictly AFRINIC could enforce this ? and it?s kinda bizarre ? because people who applied for space back years ago in the dial up era that want to use the space today for GPON ? if their application stated they wanted it to number dial up users ? technically ? they would be in violation and subject to space reclamation. There is also *NO* method in the policies that I could find to change the stated purpose of use ? that creates a very dangerous situation should someone choose to be stupid and malicious. Then ? we get to the fact that ? since AFRINIC has publically admitted that they have corrupt data going back past a certain point ? there is a very high degree of probability that without the attachments ? you can?t even tell what the space was originally applied for ? and hence ? if it was allocated pre soft landing ? and that documentation that describes its purpose is missing ? well ? the responsibility is on AFRINIC to prove that you are using it for something you didn?t ask for ? else ? it?s pretty much a free for all. By my calculations ? and based on the approximate dates I have ? they are missing the attachments on applications for close to a /8 worth of space? and I would argue VERY strongly that in the absence of that documentation ? it is impossible to do a fair and impartial review of use of space ? since you cannot prove what it was allocated for in the first place. Interesting times Andrew From: Chevalier du Borg Sent: 19 December 2018 08:19 To: Jackson Muthili Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Hello all Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 08:40, Jackson Muthili > a ?crit : clearly nobody is against the general idea of the custodians of the IP resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the purpose they have been allocated to us as you put it. it is the how. for as long as the proposed process is prone to abuse, sorry it cant fly. by the way, is there anything stopping AfriNIC to carry out audit as allowed through registration service agreement (rsa)? if no, why are we even having this discussion?? Thank you very much M. Jackson. I think we should not try to use policy where process is what is need. Since no person disagree that it is part of AFRINIC job, then it should publish a clear process that they use to do review. The existence of this policy seem to mean community don't trust that such process exist and better communication may solve that. My first reason for start this thread is more about our PDP being broke and need to be fix to protect it from hijack some large entity. Larus particularly consern me because it say on their website, under one of their product "IP DELEGATION SERVICE" (https://www.laruscloudservice.net/ip-delegation-service) <> i Are we sure these IP are not part of what Larus get from AFRINIC? ii If it is, is that accepted use of IP according to RSA iii How does company that have IP to sell justify needing more address? These are thing that make me (and other people) concern and good answer to them will make thing clear for this community. J > > Boubakar > >> For >> me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this >> proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications >> properly explained. >> >> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kmw.elitcha at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 21:41:58 2018 From: kmw.elitcha at gmail.com (Komi Elitcha) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 21:41:58 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, RSA reiterates AFRINIC mandate "to fulfill a stewardship role for those number resources allocated to it, for the use of the African Internet community as constituted by its members collectively" and grants Afrinic the rights to review members anytime and at its discretion and makes obligations on members to cooperate . So RSA does not prescribe or prohibite a way of doing the review. This proposal tries to define how review may be conducted. The "reported" class has gone through intensive discussions and improvements. Repeating old discussion points without putting them into context does not bring any value. As for the rest of your points below, they have been discussed and concluded. I am sorry, can't help you more. You need to make time to revisit the archives. -Komi Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 3:21 AM, Owen DeLong a ?crit : > It is the reported class which is the main sticking point here. Anyone who > has worked for a large organization with a complex network will see the > obvious opportunity for abuse here. > > Without that category in the proposed policy, AfriNIC has the discretion > to follow up on a report if the find it credible. The proposed policy would > shift that to a burden for AfriNIC to disprove the credibility of any > report they declined to investigate. > > That?s a major change and one which the proponents have made it quite > clear they intend to use as a tool to attack certain resource members. > (I?ll note at least one opponent has expressed the possibility of using > that same tool against a proponent should this proposal become policy). > > When I initially expressed some support for this proposal, either it > lacked this provision or I had not fully understood the implications of it. > Coming to understand that was a major factor in my switch to strong > opposition. The blatant expression of the proponents of their intent to use > this as a tool to force AfriNIC to attack certain organizations on their > behalf was another major factor. > > Now the proponents will claim that an audit is not an attack, but the > reality is that absent substantial evidence of wrongdoing, such a review of > a network of any significant size and/or complexity is a costly and > time-consuming process. > > I?ve done these types of reviews for organizations internally as a > consultant, so I know first hand what kind of resources and how long they > can take. Please believe me when I say that it is non-trivial and that the > cost scales non-linearly with the size and complexity of the network. > > Owen > > > > On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:37, Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > > > Jackson, > > > > Just a simple question. > > > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili < > jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and > >> victimizing is very, very bad. > >> > > > > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry > > out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry > > out ?very very bad?? > > > > For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in > > the proposed policy. > > > > ** extract ** > > > > 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected > > according to the following classes: > > > > 13.3.1 Random > > > > The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. > > > > 13.3.2 Selected > > > > Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of > > contact between the AFRINIC and the member. > > > > 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > > > A) They have requested the review themselves or > > > > B) There has been a community complaint made against them that > > warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and > > AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the > > review. However this review is not applicable to a member with the > > same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in > > the preceding 24 months. > > > > AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the > > nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that > > such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or > > (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. > > > > *end of extract *** > > > > Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its > > responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its > > powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and > > stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from the community > > and its members in general. > > > > I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best > > intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just > > left to the good intensions of the community and members. > > > > Benjamin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community-Discuss mailing list > > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > Community-Discuss at afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Thu Dec 20 01:17:01 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:17:01 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> Message-ID: > On Dec 19, 2018, at 13:41 , Komi Elitcha wrote: > > Owen, > > RSA reiterates AFRINIC mandate "to fulfill a stewardship role for those number resources allocated to it, for the use of the African Internet community as constituted by its members collectively" and grants Afrinic the rights to review members anytime and at its discretion and makes obligations on members to cooperate . If you were under the impression that I disagreed with this, you are mistaken. > So RSA does not prescribe or prohibite a way of doing the review. Correct. I leaves it to staff discretion to determine if a complaint warrants any form of review. > This proposal tries to define how review may be conducted. It goes further than that. If it merely defined how AfriNIC staff would conduct a review, it would be an operational procedure and out of scope for the PDP, frankly. However, it goes further than that and it attempts to set policy on things that can trigger a review. One of those things is a report of potential abuse. It?s quite clear from the text of the proposal and from the arguments offered by the proponents that this clause is intended to create an environment supportive of witch hunts against larger resource holders in the region. > The "reported" class has gone through intensive discussions and improvements. Repeating old discussion points without putting them into context does not bring any value. And yet you provide no additional context for it in this message whatsoever. The point is that the potential for abuse of this clause has never yet once been addressed by the proposal authors. > As for the rest of your points below, they have been discussed and concluded. I am sorry, can't help you more. You need to make time to revisit the archives. What additional points? The only point I made below was the potential for abuse of the ?reported? class of review. Everything below is supporting details and additional context for why I believe that clause would be abused and how the abuse would be costly to a subclass of resource members in the region, thus making the proposed policy discriminatory in addition to its other flaws. Owen > > -Komi > > Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 3:21 AM, Owen DeLong > a ?crit : > It is the reported class which is the main sticking point here. Anyone who has worked for a large organization with a complex network will see the obvious opportunity for abuse here. > > Without that category in the proposed policy, AfriNIC has the discretion to follow up on a report if the find it credible. The proposed policy would shift that to a burden for AfriNIC to disprove the credibility of any report they declined to investigate. > > That?s a major change and one which the proponents have made it quite clear they intend to use as a tool to attack certain resource members. (I?ll note at least one opponent has expressed the possibility of using that same tool against a proponent should this proposal become policy). > > When I initially expressed some support for this proposal, either it lacked this provision or I had not fully understood the implications of it. Coming to understand that was a major factor in my switch to strong opposition. The blatant expression of the proponents of their intent to use this as a tool to force AfriNIC to attack certain organizations on their behalf was another major factor. > > Now the proponents will claim that an audit is not an attack, but the reality is that absent substantial evidence of wrongdoing, such a review of a network of any significant size and/or complexity is a costly and time-consuming process. > > I?ve done these types of reviews for organizations internally as a consultant, so I know first hand what kind of resources and how long they can take. Please believe me when I say that it is non-trivial and that the cost scales non-linearly with the size and complexity of the network. > > Owen > > > > On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:37, Benjamin Eshun > wrote: > > > > Jackson, > > > > Just a simple question. > > > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili > wrote: > >> > >> A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and > >> victimizing is very, very bad. > >> > > > > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry > > out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry > > out ?very very bad?? > > > > For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in > > the proposed policy. > > > > ** extract ** > > > > 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected > > according to the following classes: > > > > 13.3.1 Random > > > > The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. > > > > 13.3.2 Selected > > > > Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of > > contact between the AFRINIC and the member. > > > > 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: > > > > A) They have requested the review themselves or > > > > B) There has been a community complaint made against them that > > warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and > > AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the > > review. However this review is not applicable to a member with the > > same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in > > the preceding 24 months. > > > > AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the > > nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that > > such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or > > (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. > > > > *end of extract *** > > > > Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its > > responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its > > powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and > > stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from the community > > and its members in general. > > > > I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best > > intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just > > left to the good intensions of the community and members. > > > > Benjamin > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 Thu Dec 20 13:10:41 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 13:10:41 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And that raises the question - what happens when the policies conflict with the rsa..... Because there is a clear conflict there Andrew Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy ________________________________ From: Gregoire Ehoumi Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 16:03 To: Andrew Alston; Chevalier du Borg; Jackson Muthili Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Andrew , You seem to be mixing things and on purpose. Whether the initial submission documents are missing or that policies do not explicitly prohibit usage out of continent, or say how Afrinic can enforce A or B is irrelevant to the discussions of putting in place a review process for a RIR. All current and future conditions shall be factored in when doing such reviews. Matching initial justifications is just one aspect. The conditions of service are clear on other aspects. Also AFRINIC is a Regional Internet Registry and not yet a global registry and conditions under which a member whose *network* expand multiple regions use resources are also known. Regarding the point about member who requested resources for dialup services and now using them for GPON breaching policies: RSA requires that member use the resources for what they have been requested for, but demand that in case of change in plans and usage, member to promptly, accurately and fully notify Afrinic. Failure to notify Afrinic would constitue a breach, but member under review will have chance to rectify the situation. --Gregoire ------ Original message------ From: Andrew Alston Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2018 4:02 AM To: Chevalier du Borg;Jackson Muthili; Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC; Subject:Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Just for clarity ? If space was allocated before the soft landing policy came into force ? there was no policy whatsoever that prohibited off continent use of space ? so ? if you got space from AFRINIC ? under the allocation policies ? you could use it off continent If an African registered company had every piece of infrastructure off continent ? nothing would stop them getting space and using it globally ? that changed with the soft landing coming into force ? but allocations before that? Didn?t matter. The soft landing policy also was not retro-active ? so the restrictions on it only apply to space allocated since it came into force. What the policy *does* say is that space must be used in the manner described in the initial application. Now ? that?s where things get real interesting. Firstly ? there is no guidance as to how strictly AFRINIC could enforce this ? and it?s kinda bizarre ? because people who applied for space back years ago in the dial up era that want to use the space today for GPON ? if their application stated they wanted it to number dial up users ? technically ? they would be in violation and subject to space reclamation. There is also *NO* method in the policies that I could find to change the stated purpose of use ? that creates a very dangerous situation should someone choose to be stupid and malicious. Then ? we get to the fact that ? since AFRINIC has publically admitted that they have corrupt data going back past a certain point ? there is a very high degree of probability that without the attachments ? you can?t even tell what the space was originally applied for ? and hence ? if it was allocated pre soft landing ? and that documentation that describes its purpose is missing ? well ? the responsibility is on AFRINIC to prove that you are using it for something you didn?t ask for ? else ? it?s pretty much a free for all. By my calculations ? and based on the approximate dates I have ? they are missing the attachments on applications for close to a /8 worth of space? and I would argue VERY strongly that in the absence of that documentation ? it is impossible to do a fair and impartial review of use of space ? since you cannot prove what it was allocated for in the first place. Interesting times Andrew From: Chevalier du Borg > Sent: 19 December 2018 08:19 To: Jackson Muthili > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Hello all Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 08:40, Jackson Muthili > a ?crit : clearly nobody is against the general idea of the custodians of the IP resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the purpose they have been allocated to us as you put it. it is the how. for as long as the proposed process is prone to abuse, sorry it cant fly. by the way, is there anything stopping AfriNIC to carry out audit as allowed through registration service agreement (rsa)? if no, why are we even having this discussion?? Thank you very much M. Jackson. I think we should not try to use policy where process is what is need. Since no person disagree that it is part of AFRINIC job, then it should publish a clear process that they use to do review. The existence of this policy seem to mean community don't trust that such process exist and better communication may solve that. My first reason for start this thread is more about our PDP being broke and need to be fix to protect it from hijack some large entity. Larus particularly consern me because it say on their website, under one of their product "IP DELEGATION SERVICE" (https://www.laruscloudservice.net/ip-delegation-service) <> i Are we sure these IP are not part of what Larus get from AFRINIC? ii If it is, is that accepted use of IP according to RSA iii How does company that have IP to sell justify needing more address? These are thing that make me (and other people) concern and good answer to them will make thing clear for this community. J > > Boubakar > >> For >> me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this >> proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications >> properly explained. >> >> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 20 13:02:51 2018 From: gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr (Gregoire Ehoumi) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 08:02:51 -0500 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Message-ID: Andrew , You seem to be mixing things and on purpose. Whether the initial submission documents are missing or that policies? do not explicitly prohibit usage out of continent, or say how Afrinic can enforce A or B is irrelevant to the discussions of putting in place a review process for a RIR. All current and future conditions shall be factored in when doing such reviews. Matching initial justifications is just one aspect. The conditions of service are clear on other aspects. Also AFRINIC is a Regional Internet Registry and not yet a global registry and conditions under which a member whose *network* expand multiple regions use resources are also known. Regarding the point about member who requested resources for dialup services and now using them for GPON breaching policies: RSA requires that member use the resources for what they have been requested for, but? demand that in case of change in plans and usage, member to promptly, accurately and fully notify Afrinic. Failure to notify Afrinic would constitue a breach, but member under review will have chance to rectify the situation. --Gregoire ------ Original message------From: Andrew AlstonDate: Wed, Dec 19, 2018 4:02 AMTo: Chevalier du Borg;Jackson Muthili;Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC;Subject:Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Just for clarity ? ? If space was allocated before the soft landing policy came into force ? there was no policy whatsoever that prohibited off continent use of space ? so ? if you got space from AFRINIC ? under the allocation policies ? you could use it off continent ? If an African registered company had every piece of infrastructure off continent ? nothing would stop them getting space and using it globally ? that changed with the soft landing coming into force ? but allocations before that? Didn?t matter. ? The soft landing policy also was not retro-active ? so the restrictions on it only apply to space allocated since it came into force. ? What the policy *does* say is that space must be used in the manner described in the initial application.? Now ? that?s where things get real interesting.? Firstly ? there is no guidance as to how strictly AFRINIC could enforce this ? and it?s kinda bizarre ? because people who applied for space back years ago in the dial up era that want to use the space today for GPON ? if their application stated they wanted it to number dial up users ? technically ? they would be in violation and subject to space reclamation. ? There is also *NO* method in the policies that I could find to change the stated purpose of use ? that creates a very dangerous situation should someone choose to be stupid and malicious. ? Then ? we get to the fact that ? since AFRINIC has publically admitted that they have corrupt data going back past a certain point ? there is a very high degree of probability that without the attachments ? you can?t even tell what the space was originally applied for ? and hence ? if it was allocated pre soft landing ? and that documentation that describes its purpose is missing ? well ? the responsibility is on AFRINIC to prove that you are using it for something you didn?t ask for ? else ? it?s pretty much a free for all. ? By my calculations ? and based on the approximate dates I have ? they are missing the attachments on applications for close to a /8 worth of space? and I would argue VERY strongly that in the absence of that documentation ? it is impossible to do a fair and impartial review of use of space ? since you cannot prove what it was allocated for in the first place. ? Interesting times ? Andrew ? ? ? From: Chevalier du Borg > Sent: 19 December 2018 08:19 To: Jackson Muthili > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - ? ? Hello all ? ? ? Le?mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ??08:40, Jackson Muthili a ?crit?: clearly nobody is against the general idea of the custodians of the IP resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the purpose they have been allocated to us as you put it. it is the how. for as long as the proposed process is prone to abuse, sorry it cant fly. by the way, is there anything stopping AfriNIC to carry out audit as allowed through registration service agreement (rsa)? if no, why are we even having this discussion?? ? ? Thank you very much M. Jackson. I think we should not try to use policy where process is what is need. Since no person disagree that it is part of AFRINIC job, then it should publish a clear process that they use to do ?review.? ? ? The existence of this policy seem to mean community don't trust that such process exist and better communication may solve that.? ? My first reason for start this thread is more about our PDP being broke and need to be fix to protect it from hijack some large entity. Larus particularly consern me because it say on their website, under one of their ?product "IP DELEGATION SERVICE" (https://www.laruscloudservice.net/ip-delegation-service) ? ? <> ? ? i Are we sure these IP are not part of what Larus get from AFRINIC?? ii If it is, is that accepted use of IP according to RSA iii How does company that have IP to sell justify needing more address? ? These are thing that make me (and other people) concern and good answer to them will make thing clear for this community.? ? ? J > > Boubakar > >> For >> me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this >> proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications >> properly explained. >> >> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ? -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From benjamin.eshun at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 15:07:39 2018 From: benjamin.eshun at gmail.com (Benjamin Eshun) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 15:07:39 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> Message-ID: Owen, The reported class was the most debated part of the proposal and it has evolved significantly. Anything to add as improvement? See new thread on rpd. - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008952.html Review policy is in the purview of the PDP as it falls under "proper and responsible usage and management of INRs" as defined by bylaws as scope for community policy development under the framework of the PDP. But it will be interesting to see a review operational plan from staff, exercising their exclusive and discretionary rights here and see how different it can be from what is being discussed. Benjamin > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > > >> On Dec 19, 2018, at 13:41 , Komi Elitcha wrote: >> >> Owen, >> >> RSA reiterates AFRINIC mandate "to fulfill a stewardship role for those number resources allocated to it, for the use of the African Internet community as constituted by its members collectively" and grants Afrinic the rights to review members anytime and at its discretion and makes obligations on members to cooperate . > > If you were under the impression that I disagreed with this, you are mistaken. > >> So RSA does not prescribe or prohibite a way of doing the review. > > Correct. I leaves it to staff discretion to determine if a complaint warrants any form of review. > >> This proposal tries to define how review may be conducted. > > It goes further than that. If it merely defined how AfriNIC staff would conduct a review, it would be an operational procedure and out of scope for the PDP, frankly. > > However, it goes further than that and it attempts to set policy on things that can trigger a review. One of those things is a report of potential abuse. It?s quite clear > from the text of the proposal and from the arguments offered by the proponents that this clause is intended to create an environment supportive of witch hunts against > larger resource holders in the region. > >> The "reported" class has gone through intensive discussions and improvements. Repeating old discussion points without putting them into context does not bring any value. > > And yet you provide no additional context for it in this message whatsoever. > > The point is that the potential for abuse of this clause has never yet once been addressed by the proposal authors. > >> As for the rest of your points below, they have been discussed and concluded. I am sorry, can't help you more. You need to make time to revisit the archives. > > What additional points? The only point I made below was the potential for abuse of the ?reported? class of review. Everything below is supporting details and additional context for why I believe that clause would be abused and how the abuse would be costly to a subclass of resource members in the region, thus making the proposed policy discriminatory in addition to its other flaws. > > Owen > >> >> -Komi >> >>> Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 3:21 AM, Owen DeLong a ?crit : >>> It is the reported class which is the main sticking point here. Anyone who has worked for a large organization with a complex network will see the obvious opportunity for abuse here. >>> >>> Without that category in the proposed policy, AfriNIC has the discretion to follow up on a report if the find it credible. The proposed policy would shift that to a burden for AfriNIC to disprove the credibility of any report they declined to investigate. >>> >>> That?s a major change and one which the proponents have made it quite clear they intend to use as a tool to attack certain resource members. (I?ll note at least one opponent has expressed the possibility of using that same tool against a proponent should this proposal become policy). >>> >>> When I initially expressed some support for this proposal, either it lacked this provision or I had not fully understood the implications of it. Coming to understand that was a major factor in my switch to strong opposition. The blatant expression of the proponents of their intent to use this as a tool to force AfriNIC to attack certain organizations on their behalf was another major factor. >>> >>> Now the proponents will claim that an audit is not an attack, but the reality is that absent substantial evidence of wrongdoing, such a review of a network of any significant size and/or complexity is a costly and time-consuming process. >>> >>> I?ve done these types of reviews for organizations internally as a consultant, so I know first hand what kind of resources and how long they can take. Please believe me when I say that it is non-trivial and that the cost scales non-linearly with the size and complexity of the network. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>> >>> > On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:37, Benjamin Eshun wrote: >>> > >>> > Jackson, >>> > >>> > Just a simple question. >>> > >>> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: >>> >> >>> >> A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and >>> >> victimizing is very, very bad. >>> >> >>> > >>> > How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry >>> > out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry >>> > out ?very very bad?? >>> > >>> > For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in >>> > the proposed policy. >>> > >>> > ** extract ** >>> > >>> > 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected >>> > according to the following classes: >>> > >>> > 13.3.1 Random >>> > >>> > The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. >>> > >>> > 13.3.2 Selected >>> > >>> > Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of >>> > contact between the AFRINIC and the member. >>> > >>> > 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: >>> > >>> > A) They have requested the review themselves or >>> > >>> > B) There has been a community complaint made against them that >>> > warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and >>> > AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the >>> > review. However this review is not applicable to a member with the >>> > same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in >>> > the preceding 24 months. >>> > >>> > AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the >>> > nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that >>> > such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or >>> > (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. >>> > >>> > *end of extract *** >>> > >>> > Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its >>> > responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its >>> > powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and >>> > stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from the community >>> > and its members in general. >>> > >>> > I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best >>> > intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just >>> > left to the good intensions of the community and members. >>> > >>> > Benjamin >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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 gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 20 15:14:22 2018 From: gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr (Gregoire Ehoumi) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 10:14:22 -0500 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Message-ID: Mr Alston, You suddenly discovered a bug in the system? Congrats But I see no bug . The normal course of proceedings follow the RSA then the policies and the BCP's. So let's stop playing and confusing the community... --Gregoire ------ Original message------From: Andrew AlstonDate: Thu, Dec 20, 2018 8:10 AMTo: Gregoire Ehoumi;Chevalier du Borg;Jackson Muthili;Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC;Subject:Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - And that raises the question - what happens when the policies conflict with the rsa..... Because there is a clear conflict there Andrew Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy ? From: Gregoire Ehoumi > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 16:03 To: Andrew Alston; Chevalier du Borg; Jackson Muthili Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - ? Andrew , You seem to be mixing things and on purpose. Whether the initial submission documents are missing or that policies? do not explicitly prohibit usage out of continent, or say how Afrinic can enforce A or B is irrelevant to the discussions of putting in place a review process for a RIR. All current and future conditions shall be factored in when doing such reviews. Matching initial justifications is just one aspect. The conditions of service are clear on other aspects. Also AFRINIC is a Regional Internet Registry and not yet a global registry and conditions under which a member whose *network* expand multiple regions use resources are also known. Regarding the point about member who requested resources for dialup services and now using them for GPON breaching policies: RSA requires that member use the resources for what they have been requested for, but? demand that in case of change in plans and usage, member to promptly, accurately and fully notify Afrinic. Failure to notify Afrinic would constitue a breach, but member under review will have chance to rectify the situation. --Gregoire ------ Original message------ From: Andrew Alston Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2018 4:02 AM To: Chevalier du Borg;Jackson Muthili; Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC; Subject:Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Just for clarity ? ? If space was allocated before the soft landing policy came into force ? there was no policy whatsoever that prohibited off continent use of space ? so ? if you got space from AFRINIC ? under the allocation policies ? you could use it off continent ? If an African registered company had every piece of infrastructure off continent ? nothing would stop them getting space and using it globally ? that changed with the soft landing coming into force ? but allocations before that? Didn?t matter. ? The soft landing policy also was not retro-active ? so the restrictions on it only apply to space allocated since it came into force. ? What the policy *does* say is that space must be used in the manner described in the initial application.? Now ? that?s where things get real interesting.? Firstly ? there is no guidance as to how strictly AFRINIC could enforce this ? and it?s kinda bizarre ? because people who applied for space back years ago in the dial up era that want to use the space today for GPON ? if their application stated they wanted it to number dial up users ? technically ? they would be in violation and subject to space reclamation. ? There is also *NO* method in the policies that I could find to change the stated purpose of use ? that creates a very dangerous situation should someone choose to be stupid and malicious. ? Then ? we get to the fact that ? since AFRINIC has publically admitted that they have corrupt data going back past a certain point ? there is a very high degree of probability that without the attachments ? you can?t even tell what the space was originally applied for ? and hence ? if it was allocated pre soft landing ? and that documentation that describes its purpose is missing ? well ? the responsibility is on AFRINIC to prove that you are using it for something you didn?t ask for ? else ? it?s pretty much a free for all. ? By my calculations ? and based on the approximate dates I have ? they are missing the attachments on applications for close to a /8 worth of space? and I would argue VERY strongly that in the absence of that documentation ? it is impossible to do a fair and impartial review of use of space ? since you cannot prove what it was allocated for in the first place. ? Interesting times ? Andrew ? ? ? From: Chevalier du Borg > Sent: 19 December 2018 08:19 To: Jackson Muthili > Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC > Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - ? ? Hello all ? ? ? Le?mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ??08:40, Jackson Muthili a ?crit?: clearly nobody is against the general idea of the custodians of the IP resources allocated to Africa to check that these are used for the purpose they have been allocated to us as you put it. it is the how. for as long as the proposed process is prone to abuse, sorry it cant fly. by the way, is there anything stopping AfriNIC to carry out audit as allowed through registration service agreement (rsa)? if no, why are we even having this discussion?? ? ? Thank you very much M. Jackson. I think we should not try to use policy where process is what is need. Since no person disagree that it is part of AFRINIC job, then it should publish a clear process that they use to do ?review.? ? ? The existence of this policy seem to mean community don't trust that such process exist and better communication may solve that.? ? My first reason for start this thread is more about our PDP being broke and need to be fix to protect it from hijack some large entity. Larus particularly consern me because it say on their website, under one of their ?product "IP DELEGATION SERVICE" (https://www.laruscloudservice.net/ip-delegation-service) ? ? <> ? ? i Are we sure these IP are not part of what Larus get from AFRINIC?? ii If it is, is that accepted use of IP according to RSA iii How does company that have IP to sell justify needing more address? ? These are thing that make me (and other people) concern and good answer to them will make thing clear for this community.? ? ? J > > Boubakar > >> For >> me this is very bad. It means there are underlying principles in this >> proposal that have not been properly written nor their ramifications >> properly explained. >> >> J >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ? -- Borg le Chevalier ___________________________________ "Common sense is what tells us the world is flat" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dabu.sifiso at yandex.com Thu Dec 20 15:36:43 2018 From: dabu.sifiso at yandex.com (Dabu Sifiso) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 09:36:43 -0600 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Current violations to be investigated by AFRINIC In-Reply-To: References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> Message-ID: <13317821545320203@sas2-857317bd6599.qloud-c.yandex.net> It is very sad to that we are continuing this discussion. If people want to really fight, just have a look at the statistics here: http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/prefixes_unadv_pool.txt There are at least 2 /14s issued 10 and 18 months ago respectively in the list from the same country but to different organizations. The oldest one has never been advertised, not even as smaller blocks. The newer one is only advertised as a total of /18 /24 (4X /20 and 1X /24) Proponents of the review policy say AFRINIC already has the rights and means to do review and de-register. By policy and RSA anything in the list from that link that is not currently being announced and was requested for public internet services should simply be de-registered and returned to AFRINIC, no discussion about it. AFRINIC doesn't need a review policy and already can de-register any clear violations, this was repeated several times. Please AFRINIC, do apply the Policy and RSA as it currently is and review the 1+ millions of IP address from 2017 and 2018 ?that are in the list of unadvertised prefixes and older than 8 months from Potaroo, That is around 140 prefixes to review, just for 2017/2018. This is what a small group of people want and say is already possible to be done anyways, let's have it done now no need for new policy. Consequences can already be tested. Thank you. /Dabu 20.12.2018, 09:10, "Benjamin Eshun" : > Owen, > > The reported class was the most debated part of the proposal and it has evolved significantly. Anything to add as improvement? See new thread on rpd. -?https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008952.html > > Review policy is in the purview of the PDP as it falls under ?"proper and responsible usage and management of INRs" as defined by bylaws as scope for community policy development under the framework of the PDP. > > But it will be interesting to see a review operational plan from staff, exercising their exclusive and discretionary ?rights here and see how different ?it can be from what is being discussed. > > Benjamin > > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 13:41 , Komi Elitcha wrote: >>> >>> Owen, >>> >>> RSA? reiterates AFRINIC mandate "to fulfill a stewardship role for those number resources allocated to it, for the use of the African Internet community as constituted by its members collectively" and? grants Afrinic the rights to review members anytime and at its discretion and makes obligations on members to cooperate . >> >> If you were under the impression that I disagreed with this, you are mistaken. >> >>> So RSA does not prescribe or prohibite a way of doing the review. >> >> Correct. I leaves it to staff discretion to determine if a complaint warrants any form of review. >> >>> This proposal? tries to define how review may be conducted. >> >> It goes further than that. If it merely defined how AfriNIC staff would conduct a review, it would be an operational procedure and out of scope for the PDP, frankly. >> >> However, it goes further than that and it attempts to set policy on things that can trigger a review. One of those things is a report of potential abuse. It?s quite clear >> from the text of the proposal and from the arguments offered by the proponents that this clause is intended to create an environment supportive of witch hunts against >> larger resource holders in the region. >> >>> The "reported" class has gone through intensive? discussions and improvements. Repeating old? discussion points without putting them into context does not? bring any value. >> >> And yet you provide no additional context for it in this message whatsoever. >> >> The point is that the potential for abuse of this clause has never yet once been addressed by the proposal authors. >> >>> As for the rest of your points below,? they have been discussed and concluded. I am sorry, can't help you more. You need to make time to revisit? the archives. >> >> What additional points? The only point I made below was the potential for abuse of the ?reported? class of review. Everything below is supporting details and additional context for why I believe that clause would be abused and how the abuse would be costly to a subclass of resource members in the region, thus making the proposed policy discriminatory in addition to its other flaws. >> >> Owen >> >>> -Komi >>> >>> Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 3:21 AM, Owen DeLong a ?crit?: >>>> It is the reported class which is the main sticking point here. Anyone who has worked for a large organization with a complex network will see the obvious opportunity for abuse here. >>>> >>>> Without that category in the proposed policy, AfriNIC has the discretion to follow up on a report if the find it credible. The proposed policy would shift that to a burden for AfriNIC to disprove the credibility of any report they declined to investigate. >>>> >>>> That?s a major change and one which the proponents have made it quite clear they intend to use as a tool to attack certain resource members. (I?ll note at least one opponent has expressed the possibility of using that same tool against a proponent should this proposal become policy). >>>> >>>> When I initially expressed some support for this proposal, either it lacked this provision or I had not fully understood the implications of it. Coming to understand that was a major factor in my switch to strong opposition. The blatant expression of the proponents of their intent to use this as a tool to force AfriNIC to attack certain organizations on their behalf was another major factor. >>>> >>>> Now the proponents will claim that an audit is not an attack, but the reality is that absent substantial evidence of wrongdoing, such a review of a network of any significant size and/or complexity is a costly and time-consuming process. >>>> >>>> I?ve done these types of reviews for organizations internally as a consultant, so I know first hand what kind of resources and how long they can take. Please believe me when I say that it is non-trivial and that the cost scales non-linearly with the size and complexity of the network. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:37, Benjamin Eshun wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jackson, >>>>> >>>>> Just a simple question. >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and >>>>>> victimizing is very, very bad. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry >>>>> out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry >>>>> out ?very very bad?? >>>>> >>>>> For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in >>>>> the proposed policy. >>>>> >>>>> **? extract ** >>>>> >>>>> 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected >>>>> according to the following classes: >>>>> >>>>> 13.3.1 Random >>>>> >>>>> The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. >>>>> >>>>> 13.3.2 Selected >>>>> >>>>> Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of >>>>> contact between the AFRINIC and the member. >>>>> >>>>> 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: >>>>> >>>>> A) They have requested the review themselves or >>>>> >>>>> B) There has been a community complaint made against them that >>>>> warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and >>>>> AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the >>>>> review. However this review is not applicable to a member? with the >>>>> same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in >>>>> the preceding 24 months. >>>>> >>>>> AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the >>>>> nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that >>>>> such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or >>>>> (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. >>>>> >>>>> *end of extract *** >>>>> >>>>> Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its >>>>> responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its >>>>> powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and >>>>> stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from? the community >>>>> and its members in general. >>>>> >>>>> I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best >>>>> intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just >>>>> left to the good intensions of the community and members. >>>>> >>>>> Benjamin >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 nishal at controlfreak.co.za Thu Dec 20 16:22:38 2018 From: nishal at controlfreak.co.za (Nishal Goburdhan) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 18:22:38 +0200 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20 Dec 2018, at 17:14, Gregoire Ehoumi via Community-Discuss wrote: > You suddenly discovered a bug in the system? Congrats > But I see no bug . The normal course of proceedings follow the RSA > then the policies and the BCP's. when the policy that allowed afrinic space to be resold to other afrinic members [1] went to RPD WGLC, i asked a similar question [2] on the RPD list, since, the proposed policy would conflict with the then existing RSA (the pr?cis of which went: the RSA at the time said: ?return unused space?, but, the incoming policy said: ?nah, don?t bother; just turn it in for a profit instead, later?) .. the answer that staff presented was actually the opposite of what you wrote above. see [3]. so, if a policy is passed through the PDP process, that changes the terms of the RSA, then the RSA will need to be updated. hth, ?n. [1] AFPUB-2016-V4-003 [2] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006307.html [3] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006310.html From Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com Thu Dec 20 17:05:05 2018 From: Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com (Andrew Alston) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:05:05 +0000 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Current violations to be investigated by AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <13317821545320203@sas2-857317bd6599.qloud-c.yandex.net> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> , <13317821545320203@sas2-857317bd6599.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: Actually - this discussion has been had before - there is no requirement to announce space assigned Into the DFZ and there are multiple reasons why you need non RFC1918 space and do not announce it. There is no distinction between announced space and unannounced space - the criteria is that the space is used. Don?t agree? Then please - have this debate with some of the people who champion this proposal - who have space that has not been announced more than 25% in the 10+ years since it was assigned. Andrew Liquid Telecommunications - Group Head Of IP Strategy ________________________________ From: Dabu Sifiso Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 18:38 To: General Discussions of AFRINIC Subject: [Community-Discuss] Current violations to be investigated by AFRINIC It is very sad to that we are continuing this discussion. If people want to really fight, just have a look at the statistics here: http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/prefixes_unadv_pool.txt There are at least 2 /14s issued 10 and 18 months ago respectively in the list from the same country but to different organizations. The oldest one has never been advertised, not even as smaller blocks. The newer one is only advertised as a total of /18 /24 (4X /20 and 1X /24) Proponents of the review policy say AFRINIC already has the rights and means to do review and de-register. By policy and RSA anything in the list from that link that is not currently being announced and was requested for public internet services should simply be de-registered and returned to AFRINIC, no discussion about it. AFRINIC doesn't need a review policy and already can de-register any clear violations, this was repeated several times. Please AFRINIC, do apply the Policy and RSA as it currently is and review the 1+ millions of IP address from 2017 and 2018 that are in the list of unadvertised prefixes and older than 8 months from Potaroo, That is around 140 prefixes to review, just for 2017/2018. This is what a small group of people want and say is already possible to be done anyways, let's have it done now no need for new policy. Consequences can already be tested. Thank you. /Dabu 20.12.2018, 09:10, "Benjamin Eshun" : > Owen, > > The reported class was the most debated part of the proposal and it has evolved significantly. Anything to add as improvement? See new thread on rpd. - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008952.html > > Review policy is in the purview of the PDP as it falls under "proper and responsible usage and management of INRs" as defined by bylaws as scope for community policy development under the framework of the PDP. > > But it will be interesting to see a review operational plan from staff, exercising their exclusive and discretionary rights here and see how different it can be from what is being discussed. > > Benjamin > > On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: > >>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 13:41 , Komi Elitcha wrote: >>> >>> Owen, >>> >>> RSA reiterates AFRINIC mandate "to fulfill a stewardship role for those number resources allocated to it, for the use of the African Internet community as constituted by its members collectively" and grants Afrinic the rights to review members anytime and at its discretion and makes obligations on members to cooperate . >> >> If you were under the impression that I disagreed with this, you are mistaken. >> >>> So RSA does not prescribe or prohibite a way of doing the review. >> >> Correct. I leaves it to staff discretion to determine if a complaint warrants any form of review. >> >>> This proposal tries to define how review may be conducted. >> >> It goes further than that. If it merely defined how AfriNIC staff would conduct a review, it would be an operational procedure and out of scope for the PDP, frankly. >> >> However, it goes further than that and it attempts to set policy on things that can trigger a review. One of those things is a report of potential abuse. It?s quite clear >> from the text of the proposal and from the arguments offered by the proponents that this clause is intended to create an environment supportive of witch hunts against >> larger resource holders in the region. >> >>> The "reported" class has gone through intensive discussions and improvements. Repeating old discussion points without putting them into context does not bring any value. >> >> And yet you provide no additional context for it in this message whatsoever. >> >> The point is that the potential for abuse of this clause has never yet once been addressed by the proposal authors. >> >>> As for the rest of your points below, they have been discussed and concluded. I am sorry, can't help you more. You need to make time to revisit the archives. >> >> What additional points? The only point I made below was the potential for abuse of the ?reported? class of review. Everything below is supporting details and additional context for why I believe that clause would be abused and how the abuse would be costly to a subclass of resource members in the region, thus making the proposed policy discriminatory in addition to its other flaws. >> >> Owen >> >>> -Komi >>> >>> Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 3:21 AM, Owen DeLong a ?crit : >>>> It is the reported class which is the main sticking point here. Anyone who has worked for a large organization with a complex network will see the obvious opportunity for abuse here. >>>> >>>> Without that category in the proposed policy, AfriNIC has the discretion to follow up on a report if the find it credible. The proposed policy would shift that to a burden for AfriNIC to disprove the credibility of any report they declined to investigate. >>>> >>>> That?s a major change and one which the proponents have made it quite clear they intend to use as a tool to attack certain resource members. (I?ll note at least one opponent has expressed the possibility of using that same tool against a proponent should this proposal become policy). >>>> >>>> When I initially expressed some support for this proposal, either it lacked this provision or I had not fully understood the implications of it. Coming to understand that was a major factor in my switch to strong opposition. The blatant expression of the proponents of their intent to use this as a tool to force AfriNIC to attack certain organizations on their behalf was another major factor. >>>> >>>> Now the proponents will claim that an audit is not an attack, but the reality is that absent substantial evidence of wrongdoing, such a review of a network of any significant size and/or complexity is a costly and time-consuming process. >>>> >>>> I?ve done these types of reviews for organizations internally as a consultant, so I know first hand what kind of resources and how long they can take. Please believe me when I say that it is non-trivial and that the cost scales non-linearly with the size and complexity of the network. >>>> >>>> Owen >>>> >>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:37, Benjamin Eshun wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Jackson, >>>>> >>>>> Just a simple question. >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and >>>>>> victimizing is very, very bad. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry >>>>> out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry >>>>> out ?very very bad?? >>>>> >>>>> For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in >>>>> the proposed policy. >>>>> >>>>> ** extract ** >>>>> >>>>> 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected >>>>> according to the following classes: >>>>> >>>>> 13.3.1 Random >>>>> >>>>> The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. >>>>> >>>>> 13.3.2 Selected >>>>> >>>>> Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of >>>>> contact between the AFRINIC and the member. >>>>> >>>>> 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: >>>>> >>>>> A) They have requested the review themselves or >>>>> >>>>> B) There has been a community complaint made against them that >>>>> warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and >>>>> AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the >>>>> review. However this review is not applicable to a member with the >>>>> same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in >>>>> the preceding 24 months. >>>>> >>>>> AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the >>>>> nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that >>>>> such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or >>>>> (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. >>>>> >>>>> *end of extract *** >>>>> >>>>> Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its >>>>> responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its >>>>> powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and >>>>> stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from the community >>>>> and its members in general. >>>>> >>>>> I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best >>>>> intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just >>>>> left to the good intensions of the community and members. >>>>> >>>>> Benjamin >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr Fri Dec 21 03:17:42 2018 From: gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr (Gregoire Ehoumi) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 22:17:42 -0500 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - Message-ID: Hello, The order is clear simple: Member sign RSA which introduce Policies which recognise BCPs... The RSA stipulates that? it's subject at all times to policies, which means that policies supersede the RSA. RSA set defaut rules which may be override by policies, but anything not explicit in policies follow RSA. Amending the RSA was not needed as argued last time, but the precedence has been set and we thereafter have this confusion. So back to the original discussion, where is the conflict between the RSA and the IP allocation policies ? --Gregoire ------ Original message------From: Nishal GoburdhanDate: Thu, Dec 20, 2018 11:23 AMTo: General Discussions of AFRINIC;Cc: Subject:Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting - On 20 Dec 2018, at 17:14, Gregoire Ehoumi via Community-Discuss wrote: > You suddenly discovered a bug in the system? Congrats > But I see no bug . The normal course of proceedings follow the RSA > then the policies and the BCP's. when the policy that allowed afrinic space to be resold to other afrinic members [1] went to RPD WGLC, i asked a similar question [2] on the RPD list, since, the proposed policy would conflict with the then existing RSA (the pr?cis of which went: the RSA at the time said: ?return unused space?, but, the incoming policy said: ?nah, don?t bother; just turn it in for a profit instead, later?) .. the answer that staff presented was actually the opposite of what you wrote above. see [3]. so, if a policy is passed through the PDP process, that changes the terms of the RSA, then the RSA will need to be updated. hth, ?n. [1] AFPUB-2016-V4-003 [2] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006307.html [3] https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/006310.html _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From owen at delong.com Fri Dec 21 05:09:56 2018 From: owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 21:09:56 -0800 Subject: [Community-Discuss] Current violations to be investigated by AFRINIC In-Reply-To: <13317821545320203@sas2-857317bd6599.qloud-c.yandex.net> References: <3B4EE770-2295-470E-8858-6C690058807F@delong.com> <83B2088B-25D0-4416-B204-FFBDA5C53E4A@delong.com> <87FCC8B1-862C-4890-B3F0-7F50727113D8@delong.com> <13317821545320203@sas2-857317bd6599.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: <002086E6-B701-43EC-85EE-D0DAA344E6EB@delong.com> Why do you assume that unadvertised automatically means not properly utilized? I don?t know what the situation is with the blocks in question, but there are valid uses for IP addresses that would not be visible in any routing table you can access. Owen > On Dec 20, 2018, at 07:36, Dabu Sifiso wrote: > > > It is very sad to that we are continuing this discussion. > > If people want to really fight, just have a look at the statistics here: > http://bgp.potaroo.net/ipv4-stats/prefixes_unadv_pool.txt > > There are at least 2 /14s issued 10 and 18 months ago respectively in the list from the same country but to different organizations. > The oldest one has never been advertised, not even as smaller blocks. > The newer one is only advertised as a total of /18 /24 (4X /20 and 1X /24) > > Proponents of the review policy say AFRINIC already has the rights and means to do review and de-register. > > By policy and RSA anything in the list from that link that is not currently being announced and was requested for public internet services should simply be de-registered and returned to AFRINIC, no discussion about it. > AFRINIC doesn't need a review policy and already can de-register any clear violations, this was repeated several times. > > Please AFRINIC, do apply the Policy and RSA as it currently is and review the 1+ millions of IP address from 2017 and 2018 that are in the list of unadvertised prefixes and older than 8 months from Potaroo, > That is around 140 prefixes to review, just for 2017/2018. > > This is what a small group of people want and say is already possible to be done anyways, let's have it done now no need for new policy. > Consequences can already be tested. > > Thank you. > > /Dabu > > > > > > 20.12.2018, 09:10, "Benjamin Eshun" : >> Owen, >> >> The reported class was the most debated part of the proposal and it has evolved significantly. Anything to add as improvement? See new thread on rpd. - https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008952.html >> >> Review policy is in the purview of the PDP as it falls under "proper and responsible usage and management of INRs" as defined by bylaws as scope for community policy development under the framework of the PDP. >> >> But it will be interesting to see a review operational plan from staff, exercising their exclusive and discretionary rights here and see how different it can be from what is being discussed. >> >> Benjamin >> >> On Dec 20, 2018, at 1:17 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >>>> On Dec 19, 2018, at 13:41 , Komi Elitcha wrote: >>>> >>>> Owen, >>>> >>>> RSA reiterates AFRINIC mandate "to fulfill a stewardship role for those number resources allocated to it, for the use of the African Internet community as constituted by its members collectively" and grants Afrinic the rights to review members anytime and at its discretion and makes obligations on members to cooperate . >>> >>> If you were under the impression that I disagreed with this, you are mistaken. >>> >>>> So RSA does not prescribe or prohibite a way of doing the review. >>> >>> Correct. I leaves it to staff discretion to determine if a complaint warrants any form of review. >>> >>>> This proposal tries to define how review may be conducted. >>> >>> It goes further than that. If it merely defined how AfriNIC staff would conduct a review, it would be an operational procedure and out of scope for the PDP, frankly. >>> >>> However, it goes further than that and it attempts to set policy on things that can trigger a review. One of those things is a report of potential abuse. It?s quite clear >>> from the text of the proposal and from the arguments offered by the proponents that this clause is intended to create an environment supportive of witch hunts against >>> larger resource holders in the region. >>> >>>> The "reported" class has gone through intensive discussions and improvements. Repeating old discussion points without putting them into context does not bring any value. >>> >>> And yet you provide no additional context for it in this message whatsoever. >>> >>> The point is that the potential for abuse of this clause has never yet once been addressed by the proposal authors. >>> >>>> As for the rest of your points below, they have been discussed and concluded. I am sorry, can't help you more. You need to make time to revisit the archives. >>> >>> What additional points? The only point I made below was the potential for abuse of the ?reported? class of review. Everything below is supporting details and additional context for why I believe that clause would be abused and how the abuse would be costly to a subclass of resource members in the region, thus making the proposed policy discriminatory in addition to its other flaws. >>> >>> Owen >>> >>>> -Komi >>>> >>>>> Le mer. 19 d?c. 2018 ? 3:21 AM, Owen DeLong a ?crit : >>>>> It is the reported class which is the main sticking point here. Anyone who has worked for a large organization with a complex network will see the obvious opportunity for abuse here. >>>>> >>>>> Without that category in the proposed policy, AfriNIC has the discretion to follow up on a report if the find it credible. The proposed policy would shift that to a burden for AfriNIC to disprove the credibility of any report they declined to investigate. >>>>> >>>>> That?s a major change and one which the proponents have made it quite clear they intend to use as a tool to attack certain resource members. (I?ll note at least one opponent has expressed the possibility of using that same tool against a proponent should this proposal become policy). >>>>> >>>>> When I initially expressed some support for this proposal, either it lacked this provision or I had not fully understood the implications of it. Coming to understand that was a major factor in my switch to strong opposition. The blatant expression of the proponents of their intent to use this as a tool to force AfriNIC to attack certain organizations on their behalf was another major factor. >>>>> >>>>> Now the proponents will claim that an audit is not an attack, but the reality is that absent substantial evidence of wrongdoing, such a review of a network of any significant size and/or complexity is a costly and time-consuming process. >>>>> >>>>> I?ve done these types of reviews for organizations internally as a consultant, so I know first hand what kind of resources and how long they can take. Please believe me when I say that it is non-trivial and that the cost scales non-linearly with the size and complexity of the network. >>>>> >>>>> Owen >>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 18, 2018, at 12:37, Benjamin Eshun wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Jackson, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just a simple question. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:16 AM Jackson Muthili wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A policy that incites or stimulates divisiveness, targeting and >>>>>>> victimizing is very, very bad. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How does a proposed policy that gives guidelines to AFRINIC to carry >>>>>> out audit and review of INR that it already has the mandate to carry >>>>>> out ?very very bad?? >>>>>> >>>>>> For the avoidance of doubt, I have repeated the classes of review in >>>>>> the proposed policy. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** extract ** >>>>>> >>>>>> 13.3 Classes of review: Members to be reviewed shall be selected >>>>>> according to the following classes: >>>>>> >>>>>> 13.3.1 Random >>>>>> >>>>>> The member is chosen by AFRINIC at random between the membership. >>>>>> >>>>>> 13.3.2 Selected >>>>>> >>>>>> Member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of >>>>>> contact between the AFRINIC and the member. >>>>>> >>>>>> 13.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because: >>>>>> >>>>>> A) They have requested the review themselves or >>>>>> >>>>>> B) There has been a community complaint made against them that >>>>>> warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and >>>>>> AFRINIC staff shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the >>>>>> review. However this review is not applicable to a member with the >>>>>> same resources portfolio on which a full review has been completed in >>>>>> the preceding 24 months. >>>>>> >>>>>> AFRINIC staff may, at its sole discretion, after having assessed the >>>>>> nature of the evidence found in the community complaint, require that >>>>>> such evidence be (i) submitted in the form of a sworn affidavit or >>>>>> (ii) declared to be true before a Commissioner of Oath. >>>>>> >>>>>> *end of extract *** >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless if you want to suggest that AFRINIC should be stripped of its >>>>>> responsibility to randomly review any memberships, stripped off its >>>>>> powers to investigate a member that has stopped communicating, and >>>>>> stripped off its powers to listen to complaints from the community >>>>>> and its members in general. >>>>>> >>>>>> I know that we are all noble people and that we have the very best >>>>>> intentions for the community, but simply put AFRINIC cannot be just >>>>>> left to the good intensions of the community and members. >>>>>> >>>>>> Benjamin >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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