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

[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Thu May 15 06:32:10 UTC 2014

Hi Kofi,

I’m very much in 2 minds about this.  I have never believed that AfriNIC should act as the IP police, because what you are suggesting is one step from AfriNIC starting to tell you HOW to use your resources, and not just IF you are using them and where you are using them, and I would have significant issues with that.

We’ve already seen concrete examples in the allocation process of this potentially happening, and I’ve been asked no less than 3 times by AfriNIC in previous applications why certain things needed public addressing rather than private addressing (which is in direct conflict with AfriNIC’s stated stance they do not support or promote NAT).

I also refer to the ratio discussions that occurred in some depth in Zambia as an example where AfriNIC can get things horribly wrong on occasion, where there was a debate as to how many addresses are actually needed in a campus scenario where the campus is running heavy wifi deployments.

I also need to refer back to what I said on the members list regarding AfriNIC and security of information and identification documents, in order for AfriNIC to act as a regulatory body, it would require the disclose to AfriNIC of potentially confidential information, and I have openly expressed concerns about this, since AfriNIC has given the community no indication of how information is stored and used.

As was pointed out to AfriNIC a while back by one individual, the confidentiality clause present in the member services agreement is FAR from sufficient for the protection of commercially sensitive information, and AfriNIC seemed highly opposed to signing blanket NDA’s with all members.  (Though there was some back tracking on that later, when we initially requested an NDA we were told no one else asked for it and it would be evaluated on a case by case basis and they may or may not do so, there was no “ok, we will sign it because you asked for it”).  I found this position rather strange considering that in other regions, NDA’s are signed on request.

So, while I agree with you that there needs to be some policing to ensure our space isn’t running off the continent, I am far from convinced this is a role that AfriNIC is suited to, or indeed capable of taking on.



From: rpd-bounces at [mailto:rpd-bounces at] On Behalf Of Kofi ansa akufo
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:54 AM
To: Adiel Akplogan; rpd at
Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Hello All

Thanks for the statistics and comparisons. Forgive me again to divert this discussion a bit. Come next year our RIR will be 10 years old.

We have an advantage as the fifth and last RIR to observe and amend what are the challenges facing the other long established RIRs. IMHO as we strive to achieve more than the average 10% comparison in member turn out we should clearly review strategies for making impact on the continent.

Should we reach out directly to the community or through existing specialized groups and institutions? Or a blend of the two?

Which would have a faster and far reaching positive impact?

Which method of reaching out is cost efficient?

I draw typical examples below;

1. The core activity of AFRINIC is managing internet resources for the Region. What is seen now is more or less a passive approach to evaluation of prospective members for resources. AFRINIC staff makes it difficult to get resources YET when resources are granted there is little or no follow up processes to check if it is even being used in the region. A quick check in the whois database of AFRINIC indicates a /13 IPv4 that was issued last year which is not even used in the region. Lost of job creation opportunity on the continent.

Solution: the very IP resources we seek to manage is evolving in a technology which is dissolving geographic barriers. AFRINIC should then be seen as a key partner for our region to ensure that infrastructures are established in our region to create jobs through standard policies which will continuously monitor the activities and link or tie prospective investors to the region rather than turn them off or frustrate them and later grant them huge chunks of resources to be used outside the region.

2. AFRINIC currently adopts "see the trees from the forest" approach with respect to training programs (e.g. IPv6 training). There are currently more than three active Research and  Education Networks (REN), Association of African Universities (AAU) as well as African Network Operators Group (AfNOG) - specialized groups. What I see as a better and far reaching impact is to collaborate with these groups to tailor curriculum and draw standards. Follow up with program monitoring and audits. I believe this should NOT be a long term goal. IPv6 awareness and adoption will have being considerable high.

3. Again the RIR should be seen playing a regulatory role. Recent years has seen considerable internet exchange spring up each with their own operating guidelines for membership and peering. What AFRINIC should be doing is to collaborate with key stakeholders (governments, submarine cable providers, service providers through AfNOG) to draft various standards and architectutes to be adhered to. (for example encourage distributed / or linked national and regional exchanges.

In short AFRINIC should be seen as a regulator and reach out to the community through existing specialized groups and institutions and not waste resources on operations with little impact on the continent.

One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation?


On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel at<mailto:adiel at>> wrote:

On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo <kofi.ansa at<mailto:kofi.ansa at>> wrote:

> Hello Adiel and All
> Interesting discussion.
> Forgive me to play the devils advocate for a while - few questions below regarding the immediate past election for board members.
> 1. What was the total votes casts?
> 2. How many votes were cast as proxy votes?

See my previous mail for the above.

> 3. How many individuals voted more than once due to being associated to more than one member?

8 out of 45. Knowing that all board members (registered members) that are also valid contact of resource members get 2 votes.

> 4. What was the total active members as at the time of opening voting?

About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at:

> 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election?


> 6. Do we have a minimum number of votes casted (%) relative to the number of active members to determine dismissal or approval of the election?

That is not set anywhere. but for the past year we have been dealing with around 10% ratio. Which as I mentioned in my previous mail is relatively the same thing for all RIRs. So even though we are aiming at better, we are not an exception (with the ressou=rces we have).

- a.

DISCLAIMER: This email contains proprietary information some or all of which may be legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient only. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this email, please notify the author by replying to this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose, copy, print, or rely on this email. We cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of this company or one of its agents.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list