[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -

[Owen DeLong]

> On Dec 10, 2018, at 06:35 , Benjamin Eshun <benjamin.eshun at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Oga Sunday,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 6:33 AM Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com> 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