Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Discussion about e-voting
Kofi ansa akufo
kofi.ansa at gmail.com
Thu May 15 09:47:51 UTC 2014
Find my response in line.
On May 15, 2014 10:32 AM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> 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.
Andrew as much as I agree there should be liberty as to how resources are
used, AfriNIC was established with a vision and mission basically focused
on the AFRICAN region. The "where you are using the resources?" cannot be
> 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 believe you got my post entirely wrong. I said AfriNIC should rather
concentrate on developing policies and standards that seek to link
prospective investors to local partners to establish PRESENCE in the region
and follow up with such projects rather than frustrate them with details
into their business.
> 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
> 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
I have my own experience about the application process and NDAs and I agree
with you. I have seen a member apply to get resources and approved,
proceeded to sign registration service agreement (RSA) and paid initial
membership setup fees ONLY to be told 90days have elapsed since the
issuance of membership fees for 2014 invoice so application has EXPIRED
therefore the applicant has to put in a new application and forfeit initial
setup fees. Where as there is a binding RSA signed and the 90 days
stipulation never defined not communicated to the applicant on the last
day. Not even on the invoice nor even a reply to applicant for invoice
> 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.
That is exactly what I intended to communicate. AfriNIC should focus on
enabling technology on the continent by collaborating with the existing
specialized groups and institutions to reach out to the community. I sited
3 AfriNIC operational activities that needs to be reviewed.
> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf
Of Kofi ansa akufo
> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 8:54 AM
> To: Adiel Akplogan; rpd at afrinic.net
> 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
> 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 afrinic.net> wrote:
>> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo <kofi.ansa at gmail.com>
>> > 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD