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

[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Kofi ansa akufo kofi.ansa at
Thu May 15 16:36:35 UTC 2014

Hello Seun and All,

Let me respond in line.

On May 15, 2014 7:47 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at> wrote:
> Hello Kofi,
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo <kofi.ansa at>
>> <snip>
>> Scenario: A prospective member applies to be a resourced member of
AFRINIC. His application gets approved after COMPLYING with policy. AFRINIC
billing department issues two invoices namely i.) Initial Setup Fees $4000
and ii.) Annual Membership Fees $12,800 as well as Registration Service
Agreement (RSA).
> Just to be clear, do you mean 2 separate invoices were issued? Or that an
invoice that has 2 category of charges was issued? (which should be the
onetime setup fee and membership fee)

Yes one time setup fees and membership fees. One time setup fees were paid.

>> There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither does any staff
member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant.
> Again you say both invoices, it implies you were issued 2 separate
invoices. Could you confirm this? As i think it will definitely determine
how to address the situation. I also agree that there is usually no
deadline stated on invoices, however there are guidelines on the RSA(and on
payment schedule) and those will be applied depending on your nature of
application in relation to the date stated on the invoice.
Fortunately/unfortunately new membership timing on expiry procedure seem
not to be clearly specific on the payment schedule.
>> Nevertheless the applicant proceeds to sign the RSA which outlines a
contractual agreement between AFRINIC and the applicant. Applicant further
proceeds to make payment of initial setup fees of $4000 and request for
annual membership fees to be paid in parts due to recent Forex transfer
restrictions in country of operation. AFRINIC denies the request for
payment in parts although they allow that in certain cases as stated on
their website.
> Okay, again this still assumes that 2 separate invoices were issued
>> The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months)
and AFRINIC never responds to the request.
> Just to be clear, what updated invoice is required here? since the
understanding is that 2 invoices were initially issued.

Applicant requested for membership fees invoice update since it was way
past February and such invoices are issued quarterly.

>> AFRINIC staff respond to member on the 89th day of a so called "90 days"
period in which application needs to be finalized. This 90 days is not
published anywhere in policy, website or communicated to applicant during
the application process.   Nevertheless again the applicant responds that
they are awaiting invoice update before payment.
> At this point you refer to the applicant as member, does it mean that
AFRINIC has confirmed payment of 4kUSD and that made the applicant now a
member?(as i think that was setup fee and not membership) nevertheless what
invoice update is the "applicant" expecting

AFRINIC confirmed receipt of the the $4000 paid for the one time setup fees
and RSA signed.

>> AFRINIC staff finally respond that the application has expired contrary
to what is defined in the executed RSA and further tell applicant the
initial setup fees of $4000 paid is non-refundable and that applicant needs
to put in a new application.
> Hmm...on the basis that there is no clear indication of new applicant
payment deadline, i would expect that the 4k should be refunded. However on
the basis that things may have changed in the organisation as per how
resources are allocated, i would think its good judgement to start the
application over again. Don't you think so?

What I infer here as the CEO put it is to associate this member with
another applicant in a legal tussle with AFRINIC.

>> These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain
staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual
> This is a peculiar case and i must say that its an unfortunate
coincidence that fx rules of the country/organisation changed almost
immediately before making payment. As i would have expected that the
applicant was aware of the cost before signing the RSA. Actually as a point
of practice, before i make any resource application, i do hint management
on cost implication. Can we assume that the applicant was perhaps not
prepared to make that payment in the first place?
>> So is this specific case justified for fellow community members to rally
behind and knock on the doors of the CEO and AFRINIC to ask why the
consequence of inefficiency on the part of certain staff and procedures in
AFRINIC should be borne by a member :)
> Depending on your response to my questions/concerns above

So there you go I hope I have answered your questions.



> Regards
>> Cheers.
>> On May 15, 2014 2:49 PM, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at> wrote:
>>> Hello Kofi,
>>> Let me say a few personal words below
>>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:54 AM, Kofi ansa akufo <kofi.ansa at>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> 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
>>> Hmm...maybe we should say the community makes it difficult, considering
that staff will only follow community developed policy to allocate
resources. Nevertheless i am not even sure that difficult is the right word
to use here. Perhaps if you have specific concerns of scenarios where you
meet all the requirement and it still seem difficult to get the resource,
then you could share with the community and we can go banging on the doors
of staff with placard ;-)
>>>> 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.
>>> +1 with this, and i so much agree with you that there needs to be a
better way to retain major part of our IP within our region, not just
retaining but also seeing it used and empowering people in this continent;
Our resources needs to drive our continent development. We all should to
remember that AFRINIC among all the RIRs has the least number of IANA
assigned /8 V4.
>>> The fact that we have the least of IANA allocated /8 among all the RIR
has also recently placed us on top of all other RIRs as the region with
most available v4 addresses. However we are at this present status-quo not
because we don't have the population to consume the resource but because
either the population is not enabled to consume it OR does not want to. The
latter is the immediate reason; if most mobile networks go native public v4
you can bet that IP addresses we have left will be exhausted. I will liken
this situation with our mineral resources; Africa is blessed with mineral
resources, however most of the resources are shipped out of the continent
with its refined produce imported back into the continent. Something
similar is already happening in the IP space in that the resources are
shipped abroad and we get connected to our IP (outside the continent) at
our own expense.
>>> Okay enough of trying to describe the situation we currently are. The
most important question is what is the way forward.
>>> The way forward is for the community to look at the existing policies
used by AFRINIC to issue resource with the aim of "tightening possible
loose ends" towards ensuring that the IP resource benefits the region.
There are areas of concern that were presented by staff during afrinic
18[1], i think that could be a good starting point. While there is another
f2f around the corner, i encourage everyone to take up this challenge by
looking at our existing policy and proposing an update or even an entirely
new proposal. Some of this can be discussed at the upcoming f2f meeting
>>>> 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.
>>> While one can definitely not determine/restrict how a member should use
his/her IP resource, one could set certain requirements before granting the
resource and those could be related to infrastructure presence,
organisation activity history in Africa et all. All these can be reflected
in a policy, i again call on the community to stand up to this challenge.
The CEO has also recently indicated this concern in his statement [2] and
calls for urgent attention of the community for v4 and v6 deployment in
>>>> 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.
>>> I think there are efforts in the areas mentioned above, nevertheless i
agree that more efforts needs to be put in place. However there is a saying
that; "you can only take a horse to the river, you can't force it to drink
water". There are quite many service provider that are aware of the need to
go v6 and that also know the disadvantage of NATing (to be an incentive to
deploy native v4 as much as possible) however they ain't doing that because
they havn't see the demand. So for me i think we will experience a boost if
we improve support of Africa content development/initiatives that are IP
demanding (internet of things) which will change the demand of end users.
>>> <snip>
>>>> One will argue how does this approach impact AFRINIC members directly
and increase meeting turnout and subsequent voting participation?
>>> It can either impact it positively or negatively depending on the rules
and guideline we have provided. Afrinic will be 10 but its still relatively
young and we need to start setting policies that will make it sustainable
and more community driven.
>>> Thanks
>>> Kind regards
>>> 1.
>>> 2.
>>>> Kofi
>>>> On May 15, 2014 6:05 AM, "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel at> wrote:
>>>>> On May 15, 2014, at 24:26 AM, Kofi ansa akufo <kofi.ansa at>
>>>>> > 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
>>>>> About 750 members. This data can be dynamically checked at:
>>>>> > 5. How many votes were cast through ballot paper at the election?
>>>>> 45.
>>>>> > 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.
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Seun Ojedeji,
>>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>>> web:
>>>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>>>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at
>>>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Seun Ojedeji,
>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>> web:
>> Mobile: +2348035233535
>> alt email: seun.ojedeji at
>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list