[AfriNIC-rpd] NomCom at AFRINIC-16

[Jackson Muthili]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Maina Noah <mainanoa at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 21 May 2012 15:46, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Maina Noah <mainanoa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 21 May 2012 14:36, Simon M. Balthazar <sbalthazar at tznic.or.tz> wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't believe limiting number of proxies  per  individual will change
>> >> anything. I'm of the opinion we limit voting per zones i.e. If we are
>> >> electing board members from North, then we let Afrinic members from
>> >> North select who they want to represent them. Lets eliminate such
>> >> situations where West Africans are represented by a member whose
>> >> majority of his/her votes comes from South.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately for this, it would mean, Countries with more LIR's or
>> > rather
>> > Afrinic members than the others, would stand the better chance of
>> > re-electing individuals from their respective countries
>> > elections-after-elections.
>>
>> If they have a more representation in term of membership and IP
>> addresses, I do not see why those countries would not deserve a larger
>> stake towards running afrinic.
>>
> AfriNIC is not for specific countries but for Africa and all its
> members.!!!!!
>
>>
>> > A case for instance of a candidate from say Boswana competing with one
>> > from
>> > .za for the Southern African Region OR .ke vs .rw for the East African
>> > Region.
>>
>> Let the south African candidate win! South afruca may be has 80% of
>> afrinic's membership and IP addresses. I say let more than 80% of the
>> board be from .za the largest stakeholder in afrinic
>
>
> To me that would be dictatorship and there is no room for dictatorship in a
> community driven organization like AfriNIC.
> Yes a > number of membership is great for Afrinic's progress but is not
> justification for countries with more stake at AfriNIC to assume the board
> directorship and needless to say, are the folks from such countries with
> greater number of LIR's actually
> representing the community well on the board.?  or their intentions are
> actually self-centered?

Dictatorship by the south africans or unto them? Constituting majority
of membership and addresses, why should SA not get commensurate stake
on the board?


> ./noah