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

Wed Jul 19 07:59:59 UTC 2017

Hello Arnaud,

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:35 PM, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:

> English
> ======
> Dear members of the community,
>
> Every time we start a positive process, we hear people cry Afrinic is in
> agony, Afrinic can not afford, Afrinic would not be able to defend itself
> in a court case, but honestly,  should we continue to trust an agonizing
> organization and incapable of anything.
>

You have really misinterpreted my words. Maybe you should read it again. I
have not said that AfriNIC cannot afford an "Appeal" process. By the way,
remember we are not even talking about an "Appeal Court" as you have seemed
to insinuate in your message. We are talking about the AfriNIC "Appeal"
committee which Andrew had earlier requested to be constituted, but the
board explained that it wouldn't like to constitute a standing "Appeal"
Committee until someone has requested for an appeal. I believe that part of
the reasons (though the board chair did not state so) may be to avoid the
waste of funds. Keeping a standing committee also cost money.

You don't say because you have "a billion Dollars" in your account,
therefore you start looking for avenues to spend the money "because you
have it". AfriNIC may not be "poor" in the sense of inability to afford
such situations, but we also don't have to create or kick start a process
merely for "testing" the process. All i am asking is that who ever intends
to "Appeal" should carry out his calculations properly and be sure that it
is worth doing and not just to "test" the process and waste AfriNIC
resources, and also waste the community's time. This is my personal opinion
and i was only appealing to the community to consider that too.

>
> Dear members, will you accept that your resources are managed by such a
> company?
>
> Dear board members, do you agree this baseless nonsense without saying
> anything to the extend  th at the company you represent is treated like
> that?
>

I believe that my earlier explanation has thrown more light into this.
Since i am not claiming that AfriNIC is "poor", there will be no need for
the board to respond to such.

>
> Regards
>
> Français
> =======
>
> Chers membres de la communauté,
>
> A chaque fois qu'on engage une demarche positive , on entend les gens
> crier Afrinic est à l'agonie, Afrinic n'a pas les moyens, Afrinic serait
> incapable de se défendre dans un procès, ... honnêtement devrions-nous
> continuer à faire confiance à une organisation  agonisante et incapable à
> quoi que ce soit.
>
> Chers membres accepterez-vous que vos ressources soient gérées par une
> telle entreprise ?
>
> Chers membres du board acceptez-vous sans rien dire que l'entreprise que
> vous représentez soit traitée de la sorte  ?
>
> Cordialement.
>
> Arnaud
>
>
> Le 18 juil. 2017 14:48, "Christian Ahiauzu" <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.
> edu.ng> a écrit :
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have followed basically most of the discussions till this moment. I may
> have missed some, but i didn't think i had anything to contribute till this
> moment.
> However, I decided to comment right now because of the last set of
> communications between Millogo and Andrew. In as much as everyone is free
> to act in which ever way he/she thinks is best for his/her organisation, we
> should also have the interest of the community at heart. I am saying this
> because of the seeming threat of "Appeal" going on for the decision taken
> by the Co-Chairs.
>
> One thing is clear. No decision can ever have 100% support by all persons
> concerned, neither will it be to the benefit of the personal interest of
> all. There would have also been a threat of "Appeal" should the decision
> have favoured the other group. My point is that in all, it is AfriNIC and
> the community at last that will suffer the consequence of such an appeal
> process. The "Appeal" process will cost money and other resources, to be
> born probably by the AfriNIC. So, its not just about testing the process.
> It is also about what will save us the agony.
>
> I would therefore appeal to all to thread cautiously so we don't spend
> more than is required and discover that it was actually of no use.
>
>
> BR.
>
>
>
> *Christian Ahiauzu*
> *Information And Communication Technology Center, *
>
> *University of PortHarcourt,Mobile: +2348068610889
> <+234%20806%20861%200889>*
> *email: christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng
> <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng>*
> *          christian.ahiauzu at gmail.com <christian.ahiauzu at gmail.com>*
> *          christianahiauzu at yahoo.com
> <christianahiauzu at yahoo.com> (Personal matters only)*
> *Skype: christian.ahiauzu*
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>> Jean-Baptiste,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have absolutely nothing I wish to appeal right now – I believe that the
>> right call was eventually made – the policy did not have consensus – and as
>> such did not make it through last call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Had I thought it through and acted faster, I would have appealed the fact
>> that it was in last call, however, the process is clear, you cannot appeal
>> any issue once the decision being appealed is older than 14 days – sadly, I
>> let that 14 day period elapse.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, it does also mean, that the only appeal open to you by the
>> process is to the right to appeal the decision on the consensus or lack
>> thereof on this policy.  Since the PDP process specifically states you have
>> a 14 day period to appeal any decision once said decision has been made
>> public – any decisions outside of that 14 day window are a mute point and
>> have lapsed.  As I have said, I would love to see an appeal launched so we
>> can test the process – I just do not believe that the appeal will be
>> successful, and even if it is, that there is any way the board could ratify
>> this policy and remain within the bounds of their fiduciary duty.  I pray
>> however that we will never have to test what happens if fiduciary duty is
>> violated in that manner.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, again, do not read me wrong, right now, I have nothing to appeal,
>> because I believe the correct decision has finally prevailed, however, if
>> in the future, there is reason to appeal something, rest assured, I will
>> use the process as authored.  In the mean time, you’d certainly be doing me
>> a huge favor by ensuring that the appeal process works as expected so that
>> when the time comes when it is required we know that it works ☺
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO <jbmillogo at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 20:31
>> *To: *Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
>> *Cc: *rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>, Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>
>>
>> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 -
>> Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello Andrew,
>>
>>
>>
>> The appeal mechanism is open to  anyone. If you want to test it, please
>> go ahead. It should not be difficult  for you to find the 3 or 5
>>  supportive persons required.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for us, our appeal will surely be about the process as we all know
>>  where  the issue lies.
>>
>>
>>
>> The appeal will  at least have the merit to clarify  and fix the process
>> for the future, for this very proposal and any other proposals suffering
>> from the same syndrome.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-07-17 10:34 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
>> >:
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste,
>>
>>
>>
>> I encourage you to take this on appeal if you disagree with the
>> decision.  I question if you would succeed in such an appeal considering
>> the sustained and substantiated opposition to this policy, and even in the
>> event of you succeeding on appeal, I would question if the board could ever
>> ratify a proposal when sitting on legal advice that clearly states that the
>> proposal would put the organization in jeopardy, and in fact would argue
>> this would be a direct violation of the directors fiduciary duty (and as
>> such could open them to further legal challenge from their members).
>>
>>
>>
>> However, as stated above, I think it would be great to see the appeal
>> process tested, so please, I would love to see that appeal go forward just
>> to test the process.
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Jean-Baptiste MILLOGO <jbmillogo at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Monday, 17 July 2017 at 17:11
>> *To: *rpd <rpd at afrinic.net>, Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>
>> *Subject: *Re: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 -
>> Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Co-Chairs,
>>
>>
>>
>> This policy proposal has been on the table since May 2016 and is in its
>> fourth version, taking into account all consensual amendments, and has been
>> presented at 2 PPMs.
>>
>>
>>
>> The authors and community have made constant efforts to address all real
>> issues, providing consistent answers to non-valid concerns.  It has been
>> proven that not all legal concerns were valid and options for a second
>> legal opinion if needed have been expressed.
>>
>>
>>
>> You played no role in getting the issues understood and closed,  and did
>> not pay due attention to authors actions showing bias confirmed by not
>> adding authors responses to your summary.
>>
>>
>>
>> On the basis of the past and last call discussions,  you took no position
>> on the issues, suggested no way forward, and allowed the unnecessary  and
>> baseless confrontation to continue.
>>
>>
>>
>> We see no reason for the proposal to be returned to list as extending the
>> random class to all members and reverting the 13.3.3.b to the original text
>> does not need another round of discussions outside the last call.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your conclusive decision below is therefore unacceptable. We urge you to
>> reconsider it.  Failure to do so may cause the authors to appeal the
>> decision.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean-Baptiste (on behalf of the authors)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-07-14 16:42 GMT+00:00 Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng>:
>>
>> Dear AFRINIC PDWG Community,
>>
>> At the end of the last call period for the policy proposal
>> "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by
>> AFRINIC", while there is support for a review of Internet Number Resources
>> in general, the current text needs improvement to address issues raised.
>>
>> The PDWG Co-chairs decision is to hereby return this policy proposal to
>> the mailing list for refinement.
>>
>> This is to produce a policy (proposal) that is not subject to
>> misinterpretation or abuse. Mitigations to any valid legal risks to AFRINIC
>> should also be clearly written into the policy proposal.
>>
>> To avoid a scenario where some points are skipped, co-chairs have helped
>> break the current draft into line items with (we hope, all of) the pending
>> comments appended. It is expected that further revisions to the proposal
>> follow this piece-by-piece approach.
>>
>> If a comment was omitted, please bring it to our notice so it can be
>> added. While it is noted that authors have indeed responded to most of the
>> comments after the PPM, for avoidance of misinterpretation, the last draft
>> document (version 4) is the only consideration.
>>
>> The co-chairs' summary document can be found at https://goo.gl/NZ4WmV
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> PDWG Co-Chairs
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "sami" <sami at ntc.gov.sd>
>> To: "rpd" <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 1:57:01 PM
>> Subject: [rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet
>> Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
>>
>> Dear AFRINIC PDWG Community,
>>
>> Greetings form the Co-Chairs.
>>
>> The policy proposal "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number
>> Resources Review by AFRINIC" attained consensus during the last
>> face-to-face meeting held in Nairobi May 31, 2017 during AFRINIC-26.
>>
>> In line with the Policy Development Process, we would like to
>> announce the last call period on this proposal starts from
>> today June 14, 2017.
>>
>> Please refer to the last updated version in the following link.
>>
>> https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-p
>> roposals/2073-internet-number-resources-review-by-afrinic
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> AFRINIC PDWG Co-Chairs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr. Sami Salih  | Assistant Professor
>> Sudan University of Science and Technology
>> Eastern Dum, P.O Box 11111-407
>> email: sami.salih at sustech.edu
>> Mob: +249122045707
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean Baptiste MILLOGO
>> Internet Society - Burkina Faso Chapter
>>
>> https://www.internetsociety.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> +226 74 92 10 10 <74%2092%2010%2010>
>> contact at isoc-burkina.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jean Baptiste MILLOGO
>> Internet Society - Burkina Faso Chapter
>>
>> https://www.internetsociety.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> +226 74 92 10 10 <+226%2074%2092%2010%2010>
>> contact at isoc-burkina.org
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170719/77e8768d/attachment-0001.html>