[rpd] [members-discuss] Grave concerns

Fri Jul 14 14:48:05 UTC 2017

Andrew,

[I cc’ed rpd as there are elements of policy]

> On 13 Jul 2017, at 14:12, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
> 
> Alain,
>  
> Let me respond – and I refer to the comments I have made on another lists regarding the anti-shutdown policy.
>  
> Let us look closely at what the legal advisor said:
>  
> AfriNIC may face multiple civil suits in the multiple jurisdictions where sanctions are imposed
> Firstly – there is zero substantiation and further clarification on this – and we asked for it
> Secondly – it states that it will be impossible to prove that the governments had no right to do it – again – we asked for substantiation on that in light of the fact that multiple legal individuals advised to the contrary – including at the meeting in Nairobi.
> Secondly – on point B – we addressed those in draft 2 – which was put forward
> Thirdly – on the third point – it refers to within its constitution and within its laws – I refer you to draft two – which specifically said that removal based on law was valid – and would not trigger the policy
> Forth – The point d in what came back was extremely vague and totally unsubstantiated.

You seem to have serious doubts on the legal assessment of your anti-shutdown policy proposal and you even got second opinions which contradict the AFRINIC legal counsel.

I would have expected you as former board member to raise concerns about the company's legal with objective solutions and  proposals or better yet a 2nd independent legal opinion.

On the other hand,  you seem to confidently praise the same AFRINIC legal counsel with his opinion on the review policy proposal, without admitting any possible misunderstanding or errors, while the authors and community have been addressing legal councel's expressed concerns and helping the legal councel to better understand what the proposal is all about.

This is very worrying and must be addressed immediately and I call upon the board, entire membership and the community's attention on this.

The real risk for AFRINIC seems to be associated to its management and legal counsel.

Regards,

—Alain

>  
> I also point out that the authors of this proposal – stated multiple times – in multiple media articles – over and over again – that we believed the policy to be flawed and draconian – and that we sort to create a debate out of which could come a real and practical proposal – but in the state it was in, it was simply not viable – we knew that – we stated it – we went public with it – what we sort was for the community to debate until it found something workable and to create that debate – and the policy succeeded in creating that debate and opening that space (I point to the fact that even long after the Narobi meeting, the discussions are on going, the IGF in Kenya spent much time in this subject), and we had a higher attendance at the government working group in Nairobi than ever before – including government regulators at the microphone of the PDP.  Did that harm AFRINIC?  No – it brought the governments to the table in a way that nothing else has ever managed to do so that we could discuss and debate and find real solutions to real problems within the confines of the consensus based approach.
>  
> We have not yet withdrawn the policy – again you are correct – that is because we are still discussing if we wish to take all the feedback from many sources – and produce another draft – that deals with many of the legal potential pitfalls and is more in line with what the community is asking.  But please, refer not only to the policy as you see it written there, but to the multiple worldwide media coverage where we were extremely clear on the flaws in the policy and our search for solutions.  Indeed – I refer you to what was said at the RIPE meeting in Budapest as well – and I refer you to what was said in the presentation in Nairobi.
>  
> The difference here is simple – the anti-shutdown policy was premised with – this is a policy that is meant to create a debate to find a workable solution – and we, as the authors, acknowledge up front that it is draconian and flawed, but we need to put something on the table to stimulate the debate in search of solutions.  The review policy that is under discussion on the other hand, is a very real, very dangerous policy that the authors and other members of this community have stated time and time again they wish to see passed and wish to see implemented, in its current form, despite the legal advice against it.
>  
> So please – let us not conflate to very different things.
>  
> Andrew
>  
>  
> From: aalain at trstech.net [mailto:aalain at trstech.net] On Behalf Of ALAIN AINA
> Sent: 13 July 2017 16:57
> To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> Cc: AFRINIC Board of Directors' List <board at afrinic.net>; AfriNIC Discuss <members-discuss at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Grave concerns
>  
> Andrew,
>  
> I was concerned that a board member (Andrew Alston) and a representative at ASO (Fiona Asonga) authored the anti-shutdown policy proposal.
>  
> I got more concerned when despite the legal advice (*) that the policy as written, created risks for the organization, the authors went ahead and defended it during the PPM at AFRINIC-26 in NAIROBI. 
>  
> It is disrespectful to the members and the community that the proposal has not been withdrawn as a consequence of the total and general community's objection.
>  
> The ASO and board member you are trying to malign here, have been acting genuinely in their discussion of a policy proposal at last call of the PDP.
>  
> So please, lets show some maturity. It does not honour this community which expects high standards and behavior from those who they select to lead or assume some responsibilities. 
>  
> (*) Https://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01#staffassessment <https://www.afrinic.net/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2061-anti-shutdown-01#staffassessment>
>  
>  
> —Alain
>  
> On 11 Jul 2017, at 15:06, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>  
> Dear Board,
>  
> I write this email with grave concern, and I am copying it to the general members list because I think the members of this organisation who do not sit on other lists need to be fully aware.
>  
> Right now, AFRINIC has a member who was elected by the general community, and who represents the organisation, sitting on the ASO (Address Standards Organisation).  That individual has, in recent hours, clearly demonstrated a willingness to let AFRINIC place itself at substantial legal by continuing to advocate for a policy that, by the published advice of the legal council, would create serious risk for the organisation.
>  
> That individual has also clearly demonstrated a total disregard for the PDP and the consensus process by which AFRINIC runs – that or a total lack of understanding of the consensus process as defined in RFC7282.
>  
> I am now therefore extremely concerned – that irrespective of how the individual was elected – that the interests of this member base are no longer being served – and I am therefore asking the board to please explain the process to have an ASO member withdrawn and replaced.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Andrew
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Members-Discuss mailing list
> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170714/75158e92/attachment-0001.html>