[Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Tom Ochang]

Hello there,
      I am an advocate for freedom of speech and expression and I think
that what Larus foundation did was to do a summary of the policies to
enable it's fellows to understand the policies better before discussions
during the PDP and concerning the 16million IP addresses, I don't think
Larus Stole them but I guess they were acquired legally by Larus
foundation. Finally, I urge Larus foundation to put more effort in making
summaries of all the policies that are meant to be discussed during the PDP
and also place it in a public domain for newbies.


 ..Tom Ochang
     Nigeria.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 16:04 Andrew Alston, <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:


> Just one final thought on this –

>

> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right

> to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Friends of Voltaire, 1906)

>

> Andrew

>

>

>

>

>

> *From:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>

> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 July 2019 15:34

> *To:* wafa DAHMANI <wafa at ati.tn>; community-discuss at afrinic.net

> *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net

> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

>

>

>

> Wafa,

>

> So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies

> – and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.

> Yes, Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but –

> one of the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe

> in something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary

> that I see in this document – is something that by and large – should have

> been done long before they got around to it.

>

> If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free

> to go and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor

> people to come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those

> people as I so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s

> life – but it certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature

> of internet policy development.  Do you think that similar does not happen

> elsewhere?  People lobby for the positions that they care about.  It

> happens in politics, it happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when

> someone else does the same thing.

>

> Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I

> want to quote from the OIF website: *IOF organises political activities

> and actions of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking

> populations.*

>

> Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the

> room with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to

> Africa – it does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does

> not say is to the benefit of the continent – it singles out a single

> demographic on the continent and says – we do what we do for their

> benefit.   Now, let me be very clear, if they wish to do that – I’m

> actually ok with it – though I admit I have waivered on this stance –

> however, we cannot say – because it’s a government political organization –

> it’s ok – but when a member chooses to have a foundation – and sponsor

> people to the meetings – and then lobby for the positions that member is

> passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is called hypocrisy.

>

> In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of

> paper and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the

> same happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the

> position that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they

> had off the paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t

> understand the position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind

> that?  And all of that – is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok

> then – suddenly it changes now because we don’t like the individual doing

> it?

>

> Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is not

> a friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong things

> to say to him to his face, in front of others who will testify to what I

> said to him – however – I respect his rights as a member to participate in

> what is essentially a democratic process, that means – I respect his right

> to lobby for his views, I respect his right to put boots on the ground, and

> I respect his right to have his say.  In the same way – I respect the right

> of any member to do that – and I respect the right of the members to then

> rebut what is said if they do not agree with it.    It is through this

> lobbying position and through the back and forth that accompanies it, that

> great policy is born – it is not through acquiescence, nor is it through

> the silencing of the rights of others.

>

> My view – if anyone wants to come into the room and have their say – so be

> it – that is bottom up.  If people want to lobby their positions – so be it

> – that is bottom up.  If people want to spend money running tv adverts

> about their positions for all I care – so be it – that is the nature of the

> democratic position.  If people want to bus a thousand people who share

> their views – again – so be it – that is the democratic process.   However,

> it is the community who then need to rebut – but – the rebuttal should be

> on the policy itself.  What I see here however, is a rebuttal of policy and

> a lobbying position taken on the **content** of the policy – unlike what

> I have seen time and again in the meetings where the lobbying position has

> NOTHING to do with the content or the policy.

>

> So rather than malign Lazarus for their actions here – quite frankly,

> reading this document, and as much as as I have said, Lu and I have some

> serious differences, I applaud Lazarus for the comprehensive work – and I

> applaud them for taking a stance that was based on the policy and I embrace

> their right to lobby for their position in any way shape or form.  That is

> not to say I agree with the positions taken in this document – I will

> reserve my policy comments for the policies and based on my own

> interpretation of such – but – I embrace the fact that at least, it was

> done based on what was written, and not on personal relationships, personal

> attacks, demographics, or anything else.

>

>

>

> So – to Lazarus – thank you for a job well done in the fact that you

> lobbied your position based on the policies – and left the other garbage

> behind, which is what we so often see.

>

>

>

> Finally – again – I respect the right to do what they did – and

>

>

>

> *THAT IS DEMOCRATIC*

>

>

>

> Thanks

>

>

>

> Andrew

>

>

>

> *From:* wafa DAHMANI <wafa at ati.tn>

> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:30

> *To:* community-discuss at afrinic.net

> *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net

> *Subject:* [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

>

>

>

> Hi

>

>

>

> It fell under public domain, that those who benefited from Larus

> foundation fellowship to attend the last afrinic meeting in Kampala, were

> given a  confidential  Education package on AFRINIC Number Resources Policy

> proposals detailed in the following link:

>

>

>

> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg

>

>

>

> The document lists the proposals to be discussed, Larus Foundation views

> of Pros and Cons on each of them, selective PDWG participants interventions

> on the proposals.

>

>

>

> The education package so proposed intends to condition these participants

> views on the proposals  and their contributions at the PPM and after....

>

>

>

> I like to remind us that the PDP is open for any individual willing to

> participate. Views expressed are personal. No need to know who is behind

> each source email address... only opinions expressed in the context of the

> PDP matter. The substance of contribution really matter. Diversity of views

> are encouraged. Lack of disagreement is more important  than of agreement.

> Also PDP is not a matter of volume, repetition or persistence.

>

>

>

> RFC 7282 section 6 and 7 are clear  on these aspects of  the rough

> consensus  process.

>

>

>

> Section 6

>

> One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough

> consensus.

>

>

>

> Section 7

>

> Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough

> consensus

>

>

>

> My African fellows,

>

>

>

> Your desire to participate to AFRINIC policy development Process is

> legitimate and must be encouraged. I hope the last meeting  was useful to

> you and allow you to identify the issues, understand what is going on and

> what Africa needs...  I hope you’ve made your minds and  now able to speak

> on your personal  capacity..

>

>

>

> The real education package  is as below:

>

> =====

>

>

>

> Proposal to establish AFRINIC

>

>

> http://web01.jnb.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/862-kuala-lumpur-1997

>

>

>

> IANA report  on AFRINIC (Accreditation)

>

> https://www.iana.org/reports/2005/afrinic-report-05aug2005.pdf

>

>

>

> AFRINIC constitution

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws

>

>

>

> Registration Service  Agreement

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa

>

>

>

> AFRINIC policy manual

>

> https://afrinic.net/policy/manual

>

>

>

> AFRINIC policies before the adoption of the CPM

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-pre

>

>

>

> AFRINIC PDP

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/policy

>

>

>

> Rough Consensus

>

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

>

>

>

> AFRINIC current policy proposals

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals

>

>

>

> RiRs PDPs

>

> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/

>

>

>

> RIR comparative  policy overview

>

> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/rir-comparative-policy-overview/

>

> ==============

>

>

>

> Please read and process them, ask questions and find your way.

>

>

>

> Come build African Internet by Africans.

>

>

>

> As for Larus Foundation, your relationship to cloud innovation, afrinic

> member with suspicious activities, holding 6 millions of IPv4 is long

> established and discussed many times on this list. I hope the fellows would

> find these discussions in the archives.

>

>

>

> I call the attention of the board on the  repetitive attempts of this

> resource member to hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions...  the

> provisions of the bylaws and RSA must  carefully be applied to recall

> members to acceptable code of conduct.

>

>

>

> The African Internet community as well as the global Internet community

> must pay close attention and protect the RIRs Policy development process

> and operations.

>

>

>

>

>

> -Wafa

> _______________________________________________

> 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: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190702/31bd1c24/attachment.html>