Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[AfriNIC-rpd] Handover to new PDWG co-chairs

Kris Seeburn kseeburn at
Tue Jun 21 04:53:30 UTC 2011

Thanks adiel,

I think the way forward here is to have a consensus whether we have an
implicit need to review the bylaws etc., at this point?  Or the community
may be happy with the way things have been done or do we need to amend

Guess if the community wants a change, we should hear it and then look at
the way forward. After all the community voice is important in the

It may be just a few changes here and there to satisfy the needs of the
community. But I guess we need to hear from the larger community so we are
not taken aback for requested changes. I wonder what the many others

Neverthess a policy document for election process for the PDWG/NRO may be
required for the next forward steps.

So far I see the need for the Election Process document which needs to be
produced and if the community wishes an update on the bylaws. These two
things seem to come up.


-----Original Message-----
From: Adiel Akplogan <adiel at>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 05:23:08 +0400
To: Krishna Seeburn <kseeburn at>
Cc: Alan Barrett <apb at>, rpd <rpd at>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Handover to new PDWG co-chairs

>Dear Colleagues,
>Few clarifications related to this discussion.
>First of all, this bylaw is not the original AfriNIC bylaw. During
>meeting in Nairobi it was agreed to review the original Bylaws (2004) to
>it with Mauritius laws while taking into consideration AfriNIC community
>model (which is unique and not specifically covered by the company Act.).
>is reflected in the minute report of the meeting [point(8)]:
>The result of the work done with our legal Advisor then was first
>during AfriNIC-6 meeting in Abudja (Nigeria) in the Company Update
>by myself. 
>This was followed in September 2009 by a 30 days public comment period.
>The main idea behind the membership categories is, as mentioned by Walu,
>to make
>our structure easily manageable and in line with MU company Act. One of
>the main
>concern at the time was the fact that as organisation (AfriNIC ltd.) that
>to operate as "Private Company" limited by guaranty (for more
>flexibility), we 
>are limited by the possible number of member/stakeholders that we can
>register to 
>25. Over 25, the company will automatically fail under "Public Company's"
>which will make our International scope a bit more harder to achieve as
>recommendation of our legal counsel at the time. To overcome that, we
>came up 
>with the idea of formally registering only the 13 Board Members at the
>of company as full members (based on the fact that they represent the
>anyway as they are elected by them to serve and lead the company). But in
>to keep the LIRs/End-Users involved, the bylaws made a provision for
>@Large or Associate Members that do not need to be formally registered
>with the 
>registrar of company but they will have almost the same rights as the
>members through the bottom up processes.
>After the comment period (during which we received nearly zero comments)
>Board moved and approve the new constitution which come into effect early
>When we changed our legal counsel 2 years ago one of the first thing that
>he was 
>requested to do is to check if the bylaws we have is inline with the MU
>Act. He has confirmed that it is inline. Now if the community think that
>bylaw need to be changed again and make the company a Mauritius Public
>we can do that. Any changes that are required and agreed by the
>@large are always taken into consideration. Like we have recently done
>for our 
>RSA (Registration service Agreement). AfriNIc Ltd. as secretariat is
>there to 
>support its members and the community at Large. So whatever you want as
>soon as 
>it doesn't put the company's sustainability at risk, we will implement
>and reflect 
>the cost of implementation of course and if needed on the membership fees
>that is the only thing we can use as stick :-) agains any attempt abuse
>of the 
>process :-).
>Hope this helps. 
>- a.
>On 2011-06-20, at 11:08 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
>> Guess you are right Alan. Perhaps there is a need to review these as
>> I think Ashok will be the most appropriate on these grounds to
>> how these can be reviewed.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan Barrett <apb at>
>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 08:20:55 +0200
>> To: rpd <rpd at>
>> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Handover to new PDWG co-chairs
>>> On Sat, 18 Jun 2011, nii quaynor wrote:
>>>> On Jun 16, 2011, at 3:57 PM, Mark Elkins wrote:
>>>>> Board members are simply (full) members of the Company.
>>>>> Those who have resources from AfriNIC are also (associate) Members.
>>>>> Members can vote, provide policy - etc - just like the share holders
>>>>> a 'normal' company.
>>>>> Staff at a 'normal' company don't usually have that type of privilege
>>>>> unless they are shareholders.
>>>> Why are the LIRs associate. What has happened to community oversight
>>>> for major decisions including approving reports if the real members
>>>> become associates. Who would have the last word on oversight of
>>>> if the resource users are the associates.
>>> There is a very confusing mismatch in terminology.  In terms of the
>>> way the community sees AfriNIC, there are a whole lot of members, and
>>> a few directors.  In terms of the way AfriNIC Ltd is registered under
>>> Mauritian law, there are a whole lot of "associate members" and a few
>>> "full members" who are also directors.
>>> --apb (Alan Barrett)
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rpd mailing list
>>> rpd at
>> _______________________________________________
>> rpd mailing list
>> rpd at

More information about the RPD mailing list