[rpd] BOARD Response: Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Thu Jul 13 09:12:38 UTC 2017

+1 

This two pronged approach could be an intermediary solution. At this point we can even go to archive when it is written that at least one of the co chairs likes the proposal. That is also to me biased approach coming from a pdp co-chair. 

But douglas I think this may me a way out at this point. 

Whilst I heard so much talk about pdp consensus I even am seeing that people are more tempted in the consensus to use voting ultimately. As if the group with more firepower will win. Then we should stop using consensus building and just vote. Which destroys the very essence of as Dr Nii would have said so many times we need to build consensus and not take anything to just decide and vote.

As at now if people see consensus with the risks and different discussions then I am wrong to understand the rfc which at my own question about building and reaching consensus was reminded to me at a Ripe meeting..

I dnt need a reply but I surely hope we are really building consensus or else stop the charade and say we will use simple majority to vet our policies and close the chapter.

Kris

> On 13 Jul 2017, at 12:28, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Mr Chair,
> Unfortunately, I have to agree with Owen and the others on this.
> Expecting the co-chairs to be the gateway to the appeal process just
> isn’t pragmatic or wise. It is akin to asking the public to report
> issues of Police abuse through the very same Police, which leaves room
> for abuse and even more room for suspicion from the aggrieved party.
> 
> I earnestly hope the Board will rethink this position.
> 
> That being said, I agree with you that there is no need for a standing
> committee for appeals: there just isn’t enough work for it. To be
> sure, this is the first time I know of any serious intentions to use
> this committee since afpub-2010-gen-005 was written in 2010/11.
> 
> I suggest that we take a two pronged approach to resolve this issue:
> First, the Board appoints a standing committee immediately, so that we
> are in compliance with 3.5 of the CPM and that any conflict/grievance
> can be handled expeditiously.
> 
> Second, measures are taken immediately to review our policy to cover
> the gaps and ambiguity we have uncovered. For instance, drafters of
> the new Policy Development draft proposal
> (AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-01) can make some revisions, so that appeals
> can be reports and heard, without the need for a standing committee –
> say via an adhoc committee that can be engaged and disengaged when
> there are no appeals to be dealt with. At the same time other kinks in
> the conflict resolution process can also be ironed out.
> 
> Regards,
> 
>> On 13 July 2017 at 08:39, Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Mr Alston,
>> 
>> Thank you very much for requesting the setup of an appeal committee.
>> 
>> The Board does not see the need to keep a standing committee to handle
>> appeals arising from Co-Chairs' decision on the PDWG.
>> 
>> If indeed there is the need to setup such a committee, the request will come
>> from the co-chairs, who will declare that they were not able to reach an
>> agreement with the aggrieved party, in accordance with Section 3.5 of the
>> CPM.
>> 
>> The interpretation of the Board is that two weeks begins from the date the
>> Co-Chairs inform the Board that they are not able to reach an agreement with
>> the aggrieved party. The Board will setup a committee within one week,
>> leaving a clear one week for the party to file the appeal.
>> 
>> Thanks and Regards,
>> 
>> Sunday.
>> 
>> On 12/07/2017 13:49, Sunday Folayan wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Mr Alston,
>> 
>> I acknowledge your request.
>> 
>> The Board will get back to you on this.
>> 
>> Kind Regards ...
>> 
>> Sunday.
>> 
>> On 12/07/2017 11:51, Andrew Alston wrote:
>> 
>> Let me put this another way - and I formally request that the board seek
>> legal opinion on this and provide this community feedback - in the event of
>> a clear and substantiated legal risk to the company - that has been
>> officially stated by legal council - existing, and a director continuing to
>> advocate for the same - does this not constitute a breach of section 143.c
>> and potentially 143.d of the Mauritian companies act.
>> 
>> While in the past we have all agreed that board members have the right to
>> partake in the PDP - something I fully and wholeheartedly support - and
>> while I think it is prudent to assume that legal risk raised must be clearly
>> substantiated before a breach of fiduciary duty can occur, I would like
>> legal view on where this line is - and I would like the board to provide
>> this feedback to the community in official capacity
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> Get Outlook for iOS
>> ________________________________
>> From: David Hilario <d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:34:12 PM
>> To: Bope Domilongo Christian
>> Cc: rpd List
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet
>> Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
>> 
>> Hi Christian,
>> 
>> On 12 July 2017 at 12:01, Bope Domilongo Christian
>> <christianbope at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [Speaking on my own capacity]
>>> 
>> 
>> I understand this to mean the "board hat" has been removed.
>> 
>>> I have been in support of this review policy proposal since its inception
>>> and have followed carefully the progression.
>>> My support counted in those who made the policy proposal enter the last
>>> call.
>>> 
>>> I expect its adoption as this region really needs such a POLICY
>>> specifically
>>> in post IPV4 transition and for the sake of transparency and
>>> accountability
>>> of the management of public resources.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> When it will be time for you to ratify the policy, with the "board
>> hat" back on, how can you possibly then ratify a policy that has a
>> direct negative feedback from the AFRINIC ltd's legal advisor from the
>> company you then represent?
>> 
>> A policy that potentially puts the company at risks according to the
>> legal advisor's own report.
>> Doesn't that puts you as a board of directors member, who is expected
>> to work in the best interest of the organisation "AFRINIC Ltd" in a
>> tough position to justify even considering passing such a policy, with
>> hat on or not.
>> 
>>> With Best Regards,
>>> Christian D. Bope
>>> 
>>>> On 12 July 2017 at 16:30, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 12 Jul 2017 9:47 a.m., "Bill Woodcock" <woody at pch.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 18 Against:
>>>> "chenghn at chinaccsi.com" <chenghn at chinaccsi.com>
>>>> Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
>>>> Bastein Li <bastienlee at qq.com>
>>>> Christopher Mwangi <christopher.mwangi at liquidtelecom.com>
>>>> David Hilario <d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net>
>>>> Derrick Harrison <derrick.harrison at sonictelecoms.co.za>
>>>> Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at gmail.com>
>>>> Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at gmail.com>
>>>> Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com>
>>>> Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
>>>> Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu>
>>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
>>>> Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com>
>>>> Nishal Goburdhan <nishal at controlfreak.co.za>
>>>> Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
>>>> S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
>>>> Saul Stein <saul at enetworks.co.za>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Bill
>>>> 
>>>> on the contrary, I actually support the policy just like other folks
>>>> which
>>>> is why it reached the last call. This policy would enable AFRINIC just
>>>> like
>>>> ARIN, RIPE NCC and other RIR to effect compliance.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So, the next question might be whether this is a winner-take-all vote, or
>>>> an assessment of whether a clear consensus exists.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> We continue to trust the co-chairs who have guided us to this stage.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Noah
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> David Hilario
>> 
>> IP Manager
>> 
>> Larus Cloud Service Limited
>> 
>> p: +852 29888918 m: +359 89 764 1784
>> f: +852 29888068
>> a: Flat B5, 11/F, TML Tower, No.3 Hoi Shing Road, Tsuen Wan, HKSAR
>> w: laruscloudservice.net
>> e: d.hilario at laruscloudservice.net
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> board mailing list
>> board at afrinic.net
>> http://board-list.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/board
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Sunday Adekunle Folayan
>> Managing Director
>> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET)
>> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria
>> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523
>> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Sunday Adekunle Folayan
>> Managing Director
>> General data Engineering Services (SKANNET)
>> 16 Oshin Road, Kongi Bodija, Ibadan - Nigeria
>> Phone: +234 802 291 2202, +234 816 866 7523
>> Email: sfolayan at skannet.com.ng, sfolayan at gmail.com
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Douglas Onyango, PRINCE 2, ITILv3
> UG: +256 776 716 138
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd