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 17:46:20 UTC 2014

Hello Adiel and All

I finally got the CEO to let out the skeletons in the cupboard.

Since the CEO has refused to be objective in addressing the case but rather
launch a personal attack lets get the facts straight.

First of all I resigned in December 2013 as a resource evaluation officer
due to such behaviour among certain colleagues.

I decided to take on this case  in mid January 2014 because of how certain
AFRINIC staff allow personal grudges and past experience with members to
cloud their judgement with regards to the evaluation process.

As a CEO I expected you to deal with this situation tactfully rather than
resort to personal attacks. I have clear intentions and for the records
urged the applicant to communicate to AFRINIC I will be handling this case.

I would advise you to make statements based on facts.

Could you mention in court which members I connived with as you state here?
I still have my doubt how a member managed to finally secure /13 IPv4 when
all alarms indicated the resource was going out of the region but I won't
point specific fingers because I don't have substantial prove.

Whilst we are at this I think the community needs to know what is going on
in the member services department.


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