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

[members-discuss] [rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Kofi ansa akufo kofi.ansa at
Thu May 15 16:49:07 UTC 2014

Hello Adiel,

Let me be a little personal here for the records. I believe I had a
discussion in your office about my stance on the cases in question.

Please let's be objective here and deal with the specific case I described
and not personal attacks and suspicion.


On May 15, 2014 8:27 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel at> wrote:

> Hello Kofi,
> Now, as I was expecting your engagement with this list to evolve into this
> very specific case that you have also alluded to on other lists before, I
> think the community deserve some further explanation of who you are and
> what all this is about. This specific case is also connected to a complain
> that has been field for investigation with local and international law
> enforcement for possible link to criminal activities. That is on the way
> and there are many details that we can not reveal here but in which you
> have been identified by the police as one suspect.
> On May 15, 2014, at 17:25 PM, Kofi ansa akufo <kofi.ansa at> wrote:
> > Yes there are many specific cases I need the community to take a close
> look. Unfortunately as a former resource evaluation manager I am bound by
> >
> > I site one specific case which applicant has brought to my attention
> which I need the community's support.
> >
> > 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). There are NO payment deadlines on both invoices neither
> does any staff member of AFRINIC communicate such to applicant.
> You forgot to mention that it was YOU Kofi, as then staff of AFRINIC and
> IP Analyst who have evaluated this very specific application, and this, in
> an expedited way during the last days of your notice period. We later
> understood that you had a clear conflict of interest in this application as
> it doesn’t take long after you left the organisation that you start
> inquiring about the case and not long after be appointed by this same
> applicant as their consultant to represent them for the application. What
> do you think about that?
> We have carefully reviewed this specific case internally and noticed how
> that conflict of interest has played in the way you even handled the
> evaluation.
> > 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.
> As ex-IP analyst at AFRINIC you should better know the internal policy
> used to approve split membership fees payment (when it is accepted and when
> it is not). Seems like your 12 months working at AFRINIC has not given you
> enough knowledge of our internal process as you seems to be claiming and
> selling it to all your new "customer(s)".
> > The applicant request an invoice update due to elapsed time (2 months)
> and AFRINIC never responds to the request.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> Well we have thoroughly reviewed the whole process of this specific
> application and a communication will reach the applicant soon if not yet
> delivered (as you are their appointed consultant you should see a copy).
> > These are some of the kinds of frustration applicants face with certain
> staff members who refuse to stick to policies as well as contractual
> agreements.
> You are completely misrepresenting the case and of course some members
> will be frustrated if instead of being honest and straight, they try to
> play the system and find themselves cornered by the Hostmaster team. And
> you as Ex-IP analyst trying to collude with such people who are trying to
> abuse the system is even worse and I think the community should be aware of
> such behaviour. This unfortunately explains why the team has became more
> and more demanding for each application. This unfortunately impact genuine
> applicants. But with people like you and alike around we will have no
> choice.
> > All that is needed in such a situation for AFRINIC team is to reissue an
> updated invoice and enquire if the has been any changes in the applicants
> IP resources requirement. If there has been any changes request applicant
> to update IP address plan but NOT to tell the applicant to resubmit a whole
> new application again when applicant was not notified of any deadlines
> during application.
> Too much confusion from your side about the process. Proof that you have
> not even learnt anything while working here beside trying to understand how
> to play the system from inside.
> > 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 :)
> That is a distraction tactic, diverting the attention of the community
> elsewhere so you and you allies get away with your maneuver? AFRINIC is an
> organisation that is based on honesty and you can not full a whole
> community.
> - a.
> > 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>
> wrote:
> > <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
> Africa.
> > 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>
> 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?
> >
> > 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 !
> >
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list