[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

[Nii Narku Quaynor]

Andrew,

Huh, what exactly did you disagree with? 

I wanted us to hear from board and you want same;-) I also thought hearing from legal would help. I never said CEO should not say anymore 

Perhaps we should not be disagreeing 

Nii

> On May 16, 2014, at 15:48, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Nii,
> 
> I actually have to disagree with you here.  I view these as critical
> issues that need to be addressed, and the only time this community gets to
> interact directly with the board and where the board can properly address
> these concerns is at the meetings, one of which is coming up.  Further
> more, the identification document issue is preventing people from
> registering to electronically vote (I know several people who have point
> blank refused to register for e-voting over security concerns about those
> ID documents), and this has a direct impact on the elections coming up in
> Djibouti.
> 
> As such, I believe that we need as members to hear directly from the CEO
> or the Board on these issues BEFORE Djibouti.
> 
> Alternatively, if these issues cannot be addressed before/in Djibouti, and
> if there is insufficient time to deal with these issues now, perhaps it is
> time to see if there is sufficient member support to invoke clause 7.6
> viii of the bylaws?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
>> On 5/16/14, 5:34 PM, "Nii Narku Quaynor" <quaynor at ghana.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Andrew's concerns are relevant. After having read from CEO perhaps a word
>> from Afrinic lawyer and Board would help
>> 
>> However, with only few weeks to Djibouti we might focus on policy related
>> matters to advantage
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Nii
>> 
>>> On May 15, 2014, at 21:04, Andrew Alston
>>> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> 
>>> Let me start this email by saying I do not know the details of this
>>> case,
>>> nor do I know the individuals involved.
>>> 
>>> That being said, this exchange of emails has raised some very
>>> interesting
>>> questions that I feel AfriNIC needs to answer.  Let it be stated very
>>> clearly that I am not taking any sides here but the situation referred
>>> to
>>> in the previous emails does have impact on the entire African community,
>>> since there seems to be a large amount of space that has walked off the
>>> continent.  So, here goes with the questions.
>>> 
>>> 1.) I have been repeatedly informed that large allocations are checked
>>> and
>>> signed off by the board, based on what is said here, is AfriNIC
>>> admitting
>>> that the board failed in the checks which they have very plainly stated
>>> are done on large allocations
>>> 
>>> 2.) Raised from an earlier point about AfriNIC requesting ID documents
>>> for
>>> certificates in order to electronically vote.  Considering that (as
>>> stated
>>> in previous emails), AfriNIC does not require such documentation for any
>>> other transactions, and considering that AfriNIC has not given the
>>> community ANY information about the data storage and security, and in
>>> addition the fact that the certificates are issued to individuals, and
>>> the
>>> ID documents are issued to AfriNIC by individuals with absolutely no
>>> confidentiality agreements or NDA¹s in place (effectively meaning that
>>> should the documents get leaked, there is absolutely no recourse against
>>> AfriNIC), this situation raises some VERY serious concerns.
>>> 
>>> Irrespective of the facts or the rights and wrongs of this case, what
>>> AfriNIC is effectively saying here is, we had an individual that broke
>>> the
>>> rules, bypassed our checks and balances, hoodwinked the board that had
>>> to
>>> sign off the allocation and effectively committed a criminal offence.
>>> In
>>> the same breath, they are saying, give us documents which we will not
>>> state how we are storing, how we are going to use, and with no
>>> guarantees
>>> of confidentiality.  On a continent with such rife identity fraud and
>>> identity theftŠ let me be bluntŠ this REALLY scares me!
>>> 
>>> 3.) Considering that AfriNIC has in documented cases requested access to
>>> members equipment, and such requests have come from members of the IP
>>> evaluation team, and such access has in certain cases been granted (in
>>> one
>>> case I know of by someone who was not really authorised to grant such
>>> access), can AfriNIC comment on how many members have granted them
>>> access
>>> to their equipment, and what did AfriNIC do to safe guard any data
>>> pulled
>>> from that equipment.
>>> 
>>> Irrespective of all the facts of the case at hand, right now, I can only
>>> say that the situation raises very serious questions about the checks
>>> and
>>> balances in place and the security mechanisms in place, and I really
>>> feel
>>> that the membership base should be demanding some very concrete answers
>>> and reassurances.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Andrew
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 5/15/14, 6:36 PM, "Adiel Akplogan" <adiel at afrinic.net> 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 gmail.com>
>>>>> 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 NDA by AFRINIC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 has evaluated this very specific application, and this,
>>>> in
>>>> an expedite 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 doesn¹t 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
>>>> use to approve split membership fees payment (when it 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 (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 explain 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 learn 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 gmail.com>
>>>>> 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 gmail.com>
>>>>> 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 chec