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"

Arsène Tungali arsenebaguma at
Thu Jul 13 12:15:04 UTC 2017

Thanks Jackson,
You have put it the right away. I now think the Board is right on this.

Arsène Tungali,
+243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo

Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)

> On Jul 13, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Jackson Muthili <jacksonmuthi at> wrote:
> 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
> disagreement.
> 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
> action.
> This community has over and over again displayed immaturity from some
> individuals - I rather let co-chairs formally communicate the
> stalemate.
> Mr Chair; I fully support this approach.
> J
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list