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

[rpd] Discussion about e-voting

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Fri May 16 18:57:25 UTC 2014

Hi Nii,

Perhaps I misread you, but where I was disagreeing was the fact that the focus should be merely on policy issues, when I think at this point the corporate governance issues are just as, if not more, critical.

Particularly since Afrinic's instance on certain things is actually decreasing the numbers of potential active voting members in the forthcoming election.



Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

-------- Original message --------
From: Nii Narku Quaynor
Date:16/05/2014 21:52 (GMT+03:00)
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: Andrew Alston , AfriNIC Discuss , rpd
Subject: Re: [rpd] Discussion about e-voting


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


> On May 16, 2014, at 15:48, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at> 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> 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> 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> 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 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>
>>>>> 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 chec

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 agents.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list