[rpd] Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!!

Fri Sep 19 14:51:21 UTC 2014

Great discussion.

None of the two current board members who have responded in this discussion
have directly answered the questions asked but rather expressed their
personal opinion on how the processes should work based on policies.

Quoting Sunday - "We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where
executive power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we
should
resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government
should be of laws, rather than of men."

AND Andrew - "The rules around IP allocations are set by the PdP, which is
a defined process/body within the bylaws.  The board approves policy, it
does not set it .. "

The community should assume hostmasters should be responsible for
evaluation and allocation of resources under the current framework. So ...

Who approved such huge chunk /12 (over a million IPv4 addresses) in a first
(initial) time request? What does the current policies say about such
requests? What was the out come of the results of hostmasters evaluation?
Did hostmasters make any recommendation to management?

AFRINIC hostmasters perhaps could help the community to answer some of
these questions.

I am not witch hunting any ORGs or AFRINIC staff but see it as proactive
audits of our resources and operations of our Regions RIRs operations. The
community could turn a blind eye and argue against the issues discussed or
be more constructive to forge ahead concrete and reflective regional
development.

Cheers

K.

On 19 September 2014 17:45, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:

>   Kofi,
>
>  Again, I state here that I wrote in my personal capacity and not as a
> member of the board or any other organisation that I may be associated with.
>
>  I have long argued (and continue to argue) that without policy that
> allows board involvement specifically in the policy, the board has zero
> mandate to get involved in IP allocations.  The rules around IP allocations
> are set by the PdP, which is a defined process/body within the bylaws.  The
> board approves policy, it does not set it, and I would argue it would be
> seriously amiss if the board were to start playing in policy and bypassing
> the PdP.
>
>  If policies are being misinterpreted by the host masters, either the
> policy wording is ambiguous or the case can be appealed to the operational
> management if someone feels the hostmasters are not doing their jobs (and I
> myself have followed this route in the past where there has been
> disagreement).  But nowhere in any policy or in any bylaw is a mandate
> handed to the board to get involved in IP allocations or IP allocation
> policy.
>
>  If you wish to see that you have two options a.) either write policy and
> get it approves that entrenches that position or b.) Get the bylaws
> modified to extend the mandate of the board.  If you wish for (b) it will
> have to be done at an AGMM and approved by 2/3rds of the membership base
> present as are the rules for bylaw amendment.
>
>  *Andrew Alston*
> Group Head of IP Strategy
>
>   Sameer business Park, Block A, Mombasa Road. Nairobi, Kenya
>
> *T:* +254 205000000 -  *M*: +254 733 2222 04 - *E:*
> andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com
>
>   From: Kofi ANSA AKUFO <kofi.ansa at gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, September 19, 2014 at 4:36 PM
> To: Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com>
> Cc: AfriNIC Discuss <members-discuss at afrinic.net>, AfriNIC Resource
> Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>, "afnog at afnog.org" <afnog at afnog.org>, AfriNIC
> Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>, Andrew Alston <
> andrew.alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> Subject: Re: [afnog] A typical case of abuse of our resources!!!
>
>
>
> On 19 September 2014 17:17, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Dear Kofi,
>>
>> On 19/09/2014 13:28, Kofi ANSA AKUFO wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps the community should be asking you if it is ... Sour
>> > grapes?
>> >
>> >
>> >> Come on Sunday lets not resort to personal attacks but rather
>> >> address there issues in the discussion. Again lets address the
>> >> issues.
>>
>> When you alluded to some "So called Management", was I the one
>> resorting to foul language? I was just trying to let you know that
>> some people are reading, and they can THINK. Why not take Randy's advise?
>>
>>
>  Agreed and sincerely apologize that was not meant to be interpreted that
> way.
>
>
>> > If you have the slightest idea about how we can keep African
>> > Addresses in Africa for the sake of Africans, bring it on. I will
>> > support you to high heavens.
>> >
>> > Exactly - the first process is learning to ask the right
>> > questions.
>>
>> I enrolled, but dropped out of the Ph.D. class ;)
>>
>
> Please lets stick to policy discussion and issues relating.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >> Should we be asking "how to keep African Addresses in Africa for
>> >> the sake of Africans" given the inherent globalization footprints
>> >> of these internet resources?
>> >
>> >> OR
>> >
>> >> Should we be asking how to exploit the challenges and impact of
>> >> current technologies (State of art Data Centers,Virtualization,
>> >> City Surveillance Systems, R&D etc) which are gradually becoming
>> >> defacto standards with our Regions Allocations to spark regional
>> >> development.
>> >
>>
>> No matter the question you want to pose ... show me a solution and I
>> will advocate it. Again, I joined by asking you to light the candle
>> and not curse the darkness. You have worked in AfriNIC and know by now
>> where policies are needed. Why not propose some policy and save us
>> this rigmarole?
>>
>>  There are existing policies in place already which need better
> implementation. Please refer to IPv4 Allocation policy link  below
>
> http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/126-afpub-2005-v4-001
>
>  I have pointed out how hostmasters make recommendations to management so
> I ask again;
>
> For such large allocations would it not be good for board involvement ?
> who evaluate and allocate the /12?
> Would you agree with me the persons responsible should see if the usage
>  comply and if not REACT?
>
>
>
>> We should not run AfriNIC like some African states, where executive
>> power does things, instead of the laid down rules. In fact, we should
>> resist just that. I am a firm believer in the fact that Government
>> should be of laws, rather than of men.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law
>>
>> I am assuming that all the other issues I responded to, are now
>> rested, within the confines of your privileged position of being
>> sheltered in the organization before.
>>
>
> No Sunday similar questions were asked in DJ and no answers to date we
> need answers. Not addressing the questions really "lights candles" if you
> agree with me.
>
>  Cheers
>
>
>>
>> Sunday.
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUHCz7AAoJEH6UvSz6fA25WXcH/jLV1ADmQenNR24dVy2NX2E/
>> 76xTCZ8UhJYIJBcMz7nd2XO3+hzGFgKIuMFFZJxDhkell6aJCmEQRFrdCx/1KW8B
>> Ggjnh8lWKuioevrvn28BLnAq5lneUFc8K4q5Usi1Q4iyrddj6GCK0xYxZNMPhm2W
>> zYF+03wKq2ygRKOOVusMg9crJpPpqYugYI/T5WDPiuLN3Y2rxBv9GzE8fa03SymP
>> i5No/xc7sUnGet3D2hHWkZ8diOpKDetUwpKuc23SY9AUa0RdOJJKQJ6GWpUDpFuy
>> kekvOxTgBh1SWwNYzLdNocRTT4pZ8q1mFuPJoPv84HGpe9oECWoM95ci54qXNKM=
>> =yrjH
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140919/c064640d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1D7357BF-29F7-4C26-9D6A-6EFCA78201B1[22].png
Type: image/png
Size: 13157 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20140919/c064640d/attachment.png>