[rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

Mon Dec 4 09:02:34 UTC 2017

Badru,

Wait,  there were objections when I said I would engage the chairs of the PDP offline – but now I am told to engage the board offline?

It is a sad that that I have come to the conclusion that standard methods of engagement are no longer really effective. Let us look at things objectively:

  1.  There has been an open request made multiple times for the board to justify their travel to this community and give us reports on what our money is being spent on and what justification there is to it – it has never been addressed
  2.  There are outstanding legal questions that could have dramatic effects on this organisation – specifically – is AfriNIC in direct violation of section 46 of the Mauritian Competitions act of 2007 – despite the fact that investigations would commence on the 20th of October – we have still not had a word of feedback on that issue
  3.  There is talk about how AfriNIC belongs to the whole continent – no – it doesn’t – it belongs to the directors – they are the ones that hold *ALL* the legal standing – that is hard fact
  4.  In Mauritius – in a special resolution – there was a resolution tabled to state that a director leaving the board had an obligation to hand back his membership of the organization – this was just assumed before.  That same resolution was voted against by the membership – in effect legitimizing a situation where an elected director who is granted membership of this organisation in a legal capacity *never* has to give it up again.  Which in turn – creates a very interesting situation that because of the structure of the company specifying the number of directors in the bylaws – no new directors would be able to be appointed.  Why this community chose to vote that way – only heaven alone knows – but we effectively legitimized a situation where a director can remain a “part owner” of the company for life, based not on what was good for the organization but rather because we didn’t like who proposed the resolutions.
  5.  AfriNIC has never been willing to sign NDA’s with its members – despite commitment to do so which is documented in the IANA Report on the recognition of AfriNIC dated 8th April 2005 (Section 10) – because the RSA is NOT a non-disclosure agreement.

Consensus in the PDP is ignored – it has become a game of majority – on the floor in Mauritius there were individuals arguing that there was no need for a last call – and that a few objections could not silence a proposal – never mind the fact that this flies in the face of what rough consensus is defined as.

Let us be real – AfriNIC does belong to this community or the members who pay its money – it is entirely controlled by the board – a board that is forgetting transparency – a board that is being unresponsive to queries based on who makes them – an a community that chooses to vote against resolutions in their own interests based on who proposes them.

Perhaps the day will come when AfriNIC finds itself in a court of law – and maybe then – when the court issues a ruling – we will see an end to this charade.

Thanks

Andrew

From: Badru Ntege [mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com]
Sent: 04 December 2017 11:14
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: Christian Ahiauzu <christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng>; AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

Andrew

You raise a number of points which need to be substantiated.  Probably offline with Board.

AfriNic belongs to the whole continent but if sentiments you share  are your opinion and not factual it is not good.  If they are factual a resolution needs to be explored.  Where board comes in.

On 4 Dec 2017, at 9:29 am, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
Christian –

Why would people want to sign up to this list?

So they can be called Neo-Colonialists when they disagree?

Focus on the technical on RPD

So they can be insulted?  So they be attacked verballed and abused?  So that when that happens they can watch as the code of conduct on the list is never enforced and it happens time and time and time again?  So they can be spammed my messages that have nothing to do with policy and are often not based in any objective fact?

Are there actual issues where this has happened ?

Would like to hear from secretariat..

But please share some facts I’m sure the governance committee was also put in place to handle and guide how we handle.

I can fully understand why people stay away from this list – and further more – technical people subscribe to the list – these policies have business impact – and if you think that the C Level executives who are signing these documents are going to be on this list – think again – they rely on their technical people to report to them and give them the facts – they rely on the information from outside.  Very often, those technical people do not have the authority to sign a statement like that – however, the executives want the statement made.  Let them make it – it is them that are paying AfriNIC’s membership fees which let AfriNIC continue to exist

Andrew

From: Christian Ahiauzu [mailto:christian.ahiauzu at uniport.edu.ng]
Sent: 04 December 2017 00:49
To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>
Cc: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>>; AfriNIC Resource Policy Discussion List <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy

Hi Andrew,

On Dec 3, 2017 5:59 AM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
> On the contrary Badru,
>
> They have chosen to send their thoughts to the RPD - they are following the process - and having their voice heard on the policy list.
>

Yes. They are having their voice heard on the RPD, but the question is, if they haven't signed up on the RPD, are they hearing other peoples voices?

Remember, you are either participating on the RPD, or at the face to face meeting which is the climax of the PDP process. I wonder if these "ISPs" have been following the discussion on the list, and how the decisions where taken. I have no problem with someone protesting or appealing the decision of the co-chairs. However, they should give themselves the benefit of the doubt and participate in the processes that climaxed to the final rough consensus.

> What the pdp says is that thoughts should be heard on the list - or at the microphone - nowhere does it state that communication to the list cannot be formal - nowhere does it state it cannot be in a pdf - nowhere does it state that it cannot be signed.
>
> The process is being followed - the communication is via the RPD list - and if this violates the process please can someone point to chapter and verse as to where in the process?  Once I have it I will go back to the larger block and explain to them that Afrinic’s process has decided to try and implement a policy that could damage their businesses and this industry while at the same time refusing to let them be heard on the issue - in the forum they were meant to be heard in - because they chose to do it via a signed letter rather than get abused on a list with vague statements of Neo-colonialism and such.
>

Going back to a "larger group" and explaining to them things, may not be the right way to go. Why should they not hear for themselves and judge for themselves. What is wrong with them signing up for a list and participating for themselves. With all due respect, I really think they should sign up on the List and even if they wish to put up a signed document, they are free to do so. My personal opinion please.

> Be curious to see how that plays out
>
> Andrew
>
> Get Outlook for iOS
> ________________________________
> From: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>>
> Sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 6:56:04 AM
> To: Andrew Alston
> Cc: Alan Barrett; Afrinic RPD
>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy
>
> Since these are expressions and the authors have chosen to use a channel out of the RPD then other members could see it as noise.
> Appreciate and note the expressions however continue with information and discussion in the RPD.
>
> Let’s not innovate creative channels.  There processes to introduce change if members wish to introduce petitions.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 3 Dec 2017, at 03:24, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing that *requires* it – there is also nothing that forbids it.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a discussion in various forums about how to handle this – and various ISP’s have opted to rather sign the petition document and have to forwarded to the list by a single individual – they wish to partake but do not wish to put up with the noise on this list, so, they are choosing to express their views in their own way.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since each of them is a paying member, and each of them is impacted by policy, I believe they should be free to express their views in any way they wish, and if that is by signing a petition document and having someone else send it through to the list, I hardly see a reason to stop it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net<mailto:alan.barrett at afrinic.net>]
>> Sent: 02 December 2017 11:37
>> To: Afrinic RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] FW: Opposition to the changes in the AfriNIC Soft Landing Policy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 1 Dec 2017, at 15:45, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Please see attached.
>> >
>> > By agreement I will be sending these signed documents through as they come in from the various parties.
>>
>> I don’t know what agreement you mean.
>>
>> I am not aware of anything in the policy development process or the appeal process that requires signed documents similar to those I have seen in the past day or so. If people have objections to a policy proposal, I would suggest that they follow the existing process and make their comments in the RPD mailing list.
>>
>> Alan Barrett
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20171204/423b56af/attachment-0001.html>