<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Owen</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Selective Memory.........</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">If we are going to throw around the narrative of folks on the board acting acting in bad faith, may I
remind some of the members castigating the board in defense of a
respectable employee who chose to resign from their position for reasons
unknown to all of us but are now using the specific board minutes to go
after the board for suspiciously other unknown reasons, about the history of
the so called mighty NDA.<br><br>If we remember correctly recent events dating
back a couple of years ago when the whole breach of NDA issue surfaced
before members and the community, you will realize that one of the vocal
members here used the NDA to defend what I would probably call the most
unethical boardroom behaviors and tactics a few years ago from what we
learned as a community. In fact the board chair at the time had reducted
board minutes and presented to the community what was purely
misinformation in the name of the NDA.<br><br>Two Board members at the
time acted against this and released the unreducted minutes to the
community. A number of board members called for the two to resign so as
to make a statement to the community which they did and years later we
came to learn that the same folks who led the call for resignation of
directors, years later did exactly the same thing of releasing
information that the board had not yet decided to release.<br><br>The
issue of the information being public should therefore not be used here because
the community had been told that the information was public and they
should be able to find it. As some have mentioned already, we all work
or belong to communities where some rules are outwardly out of tune.
But we work to change them and not to manipulate them.<br><br>I have not
read anywhere why the current CEO decided to resign and I obviously
have no idea about his reasons. It is not the first time an AFRINIC CEO
has resigned and I can't seem to understand all these attacks I have
seen towards the board as I catch up with all the emails that have been
flying all over the place.<br><br>PS: The role of the CEO is not a
lifetime role nor is the role of board member. We have prescribed
processes of changing these roles with AfriNIC continuing to stand
tall.The outgoing CEO is a highly respected member of this community and
instead of us celebrating his tenure, members are looking at board
minutes to taint his work for their own reasons.<br><br>It's as if every
year as we head into the AGMM for the past couple of years, we see the
same members of the community come in to attack the institution of the
board with the worst attack from the same members of this community in
Senegal last year. <br><br>I really ask that we cease and desist................</div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><br>My 2 bit coins<br>Noah</div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:30 AM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style="overflow-wrap: break-word;"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Jun 3, 2019, at 13:14 , Noah <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz" target="_blank">noah@neo.co.tz</a>> wrote:</div><br class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Hi Andrew <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">During discussions many suggestions/ideas, are said and the whole idea of the discussions is to arrive at a decision by listening to other board members. In fact the outcome of these discussions and the most important outcomes of the board meetings are the crafted resolutions.</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Sure, but there certainly ought to be a reasonable expectation that an accusation against another board member which is factually baseless and involves a claim of violation of an agreement which makes it perfectly clear that the conduct in question _IS_ permitted would not be permitted in such a body.</div><div><br></div><div>As Andrew pointed out… Every member of the board signed the document in question and should, therefore, be familiar with its content.</div><div><br></div><div>As Andrew pointed out, the document in question specifically allows for board members to further discuss and disseminate information of a public nature.</div><div><br></div><div>As Andrew pointed out, the document shared with the community was a public document.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Therefore when we start scrutinizing minute by minute what individual board members say or suggest in discussions we are now entering mind control territory.</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>When the board takes such a provocative action by acting in bad faith against one of its own, the community has a duty to scrutinize the boards actions. Indeed, the community has a broad responsibility to oversee the actions of the board and ensure responsible governance and accountability of the board to the members and the community.</div><div><br></div><div>Failing to review and comment on the minutes in question would be failing in that responsibility.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">There is nothing abnormal with what transpired in the discussions in those minutes unless of course if you want to make us foolishly believe that an individual board member must not suggest a subjective idea which a collective group can determine through a discussion if what was a subjective view point becomes an objective viewpoint.</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Sadly, I think you may be right that it may not be abnormal for board members to act in bad faith against other board members. However, I do not believe that means we should continue to tolerate it.</div><div><br></div><div>Without wading into your awkward sentence about subjective and objective, I will point out that objectively, the facts are as Andrew stated them…</div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>1.<span class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Every board member should be familiar with the terms of the NDA.</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>2.<span class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The NDA specifically allows board members to publicly share information which is already public.</div><div><span class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>3.<span class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The document shared by the board members in question was, by definition already public.</div><div><br></div><div>All of these are objective facts. Not subjective.</div><div><br></div><div>Bringing a motion against a board member claiming that the action in question violated the NDA is, therefore, objectively an act of bad faith.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">That whole discussion was perfectly normal and the conclusion of the minutes indicate as such. There was no NDA violation and the was a call for the board to find better ways to cohesively work together including improving communication between themselves as relates with the management of the organization in a more corporate structured manner.</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>There remains in the minutes a claim that the CEO should not have published the document without board approval. This claim is patently absurd and the fact that you would call it normal is almost as disturbing as the fact that the board came to that irrational conclusion.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">There is therefore no reasonable cause to call out for the resignations of the board members and I fully support the board as they continue carrying out their mandate.</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>A board member brought a serious accusation against another board member in objective and clear bad faith and you do not feel that this warrants a call for that board member’s resignation? I suppose here we get into subjective territory, but I believe that board members should at the very least be encouraged to limit accusations to those which can be backed up by facts and which are not so obviously specious in their origins.</div><div><br></div><div>I think it is unreasonable and unwise to tolerate such conduct from board members. The fact that the board ultimately came to the correct conclusion does not justify the initial acts of bad faith which initiated the discussion in question.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cheers,</div><div dir="auto">Noah</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, 00:08 Andrew Alston, <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_-1353285380266663903m_-1337149912076519713m_-2826481538071044150m_3191588455191804652WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal">Thank you Alan,<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Now – I would like to break this down a bit – firstly – every directory is signatory to this document – and by signing it – have acknowledged – under their own hand – their knowledge of its contents. There can be no claim that the contents
of this document once signed by a director are not known.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Now – with that said – let us look at what the NDA said – wording relevant to this is highlighted:<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>1. I understand that certain information about AfriNIC is confidential,
<b><u>which is information not previously published or otherwise disclosed to the public</u></b> and which relates to but is not limited to the following:
<u></u><u></u></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Now – there can be no question that the information in said documents were disclosed to the public. The court had the documents – the courts – are a public entity – judges – are public servants. To add further weight – I point to the fact
that resolution 201411.211 states: <b><i><u><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:rgb(117,117,117);background:white none repeat scroll 0% 0%">However, information disclosed by the Board to third parties not under NDA to the Board is no longer confidential and
is deemed to be in the public domain.</span></u></i></b><b><i><u><u></u><u></u></u></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><i><u><u></u><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span><u></u></u></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal">So – it is absolutely beyond dispute that those court documents were public information. It is absolutely beyond dispute that every director had to know the definition of confidential – they signed the NDA. Therefore – logic states –
that any director making a claim of NDA violation or claiming contractual violation in breach of the NDA was bringing a motion that he
<b><i><u>KNEW</u></i></b> was both frivolous and without any merit whatsoever.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Now – let us look beyond the bylaws at the companies act specifically section 143 entitled “Duties of directors to act in good faith and in best interests of the company”<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Section 143.(1).(c) states: <b><i><u>exercise their powers honestly in good faith in the best interests of the company and for the respective purposes for which such powers are explicitly or impliedly conferred;<u></u><u></u></u></i></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Now – since it can be CLEARLY established that the power to bring charges of NDA violation and violation of contract were exercised in bad faith – considering the full knowledge of said director under his own signature that the information
was not – and could not be – covered under the NDA – at the VERY least one director is in, at least in my mind, in clear violation of this clause and his fiduciary duties as a director. Furthermore – while perhaps more tenuous an argument – I would argue
that the chair – knowing full well that the charges being brought were frivolous and in bad faith (on the same basis that the charges made by Serge were in bad faith) acted contrary to the best interests of the company by allowing these charges to be heard
– and published – showing the world a completely dysfunctional board acting in bad faith.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">So – while I stand by my statements that I believe the board as a whole should resign – particularly in light of the fact that not a single director objected to the charges brought and the fact that the meeting was being held in the first
place – thereby lending credibility to a clear cut act of bad faith – and therefore also acting against the best interests of the company – I need to state – that this in particular applies both the Chair and Serge Ilunga – both of whom in my mind CLEARLY
violated the companies act and their fiduciary duties as is clearly documented in those minutes.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Hence – I reiterate my call for the resignation of the directors.<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentcolor currentcolor;padding:3pt 0cm 0cm"><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12pt">From: </span></b><span style="font-size:12pt">Alan Barrett <<a href="mailto:alan.barrett@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">alan.barrett@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, 31 May 2019 at 20:55<br>
<b>To: </b>General Discussions of AFRINIC <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>AFRINIC Board of Directors' List <<a href="mailto:board@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">board@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Community-Discuss] Gratitude<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br>
> On 28 May 2019, at 14:49, Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Dear AfriNIC board members,<br>
> <br>
> reference is made in below email, and also in several other discussion<br>
> items regarding AfriNIC and its governance, to an NDA that board members<br>
> are to adhere to.<br>
> <br>
> Can you share the document please?<br>
<br>
The Board NDA has been published at <<a href="https://afrinic.net/board/board-documents" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/board/board-documents</a>><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Alan Barrett<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Community-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>Community-Discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank">Community-Discuss@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>