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

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

Jackson Muthili jacksonmuthi at
Thu Jul 13 11:20:51 UTC 2017

I do not understand the backdrop for this outcry.

That co-chairs formally inform Board when an agreement has not been
reached with the aggrieved party is merely a formality that the Board
and whole community will already be aware of in the first place
because all discussions are already public. Co-Chairs are trusted
individuals in this process. I cannot see a circumstance where
co-chairs can, in bad-faith, refuse to concede that there has been

>From where I am sitting, we have some really immature community
members who will at the slightest iota of their positions being
counter argued with run to the Board for appealing any co-chairs
decisions. Since co-chairs are the "leaders" in this process, prudence
demands that they formally declare the stalemate for the Board to take

This community has over and over again displayed immaturity from some
individuals - I rather let co-chairs formally communicate the

Mr Chair; I fully support this approach.


On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Andrew Alston
<Andrew.Alston at> wrote:
> Mr Folayan, Chair of the board of AfriNIC.
> I am sitting here almost to stunned to even type this email.
> The position taken by the board in this regard, as expressed in your email
> below, quite frankly beggars belief.  The fact that a board, who in large
> part, drafted a special resolution that attempted to deal with conflict of
> interest, could take a position like this – where is the consistency?
> What you are effectively saying in this email is that – when a member of the
> community decides that the judgement of the co-chairs must be questioned –
> they must then – rely on the judgement of those same co-chairs – to allow an
> appeal against their own bad judgement…. If the flaws in that logic train
> are not obvious – then I don’t know what is.
> This effectively strips the community of any credible means of appeal – it
> makes a mockery out of any form of governance – it exposes a fundamental
> lack of understanding of conflict of interest – and while I thought there
> was not much that could truly shock me – this email has left me stunned.
> Please – I appeal to you – back down from this position and restore a little
> credibility to this process, and to yourselves – because wow… just wow…
> In one email – you have managed to confirm and solidify every thought I had
> about the business risks posed by this organisation.
> Andrew

More information about the RPD mailing list