[Community-Discuss] [rpd] Larus foundation fellowship

[Daniel Yakmut]

Pls Tom, note that Larus Cloud and Larus Foundation are different entities.

Just for the records.

Daniel

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 4:24 PM Tom Ochang <dontommy24 at gmail.com> wrote:


> 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

>>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20190702/7da89250/attachment.html>