[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -
gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr
Wed Dec 12 16:33:06 UTC 2018
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.
------ 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
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 -
This thread is not about a particular policy as community is
discussing two possible threats to Afrinic PDP and its governance in
Your obstinacy to discuss and oppose review proposal everywhere and
at any occasions, made me doubt and question your real relationship
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
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,
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.
> 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
> 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?
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss