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

[rpd] Timeline for handling AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 policy appeal

Andrew Alston Andrew.Alston at
Fri Jan 26 12:29:23 UTC 2018

Oh Marcus,

Thank you so much for the amusement - I really wonder what world you live in.

Yes - I have been behind the most comprehensive v6 rollouts on the continent to date (measured by country wide penetration levels) - though that was very much a team effort.

However - we are also actively using IPv4 addresses at a rate that is astounding - to connect customers that need it today.

Do I have an agenda to transfer out? That would be entirely insane - and selling IP addresses for anyone who has them and is growing as an ISP would be equally insane - do your maths.

Let’s say your average user pays $30 a month - or $360 a year in revenue - if you use /31s to number - that’s an IP cost of $28 at peak at the moment - that’s what i

Get Outlook for iOS<>
From: Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 10:34:32 AM
To: Owen DeLong; Boubakar Barry; Andrew Alston
Cc: rpd List
Subject: RE: [rpd] Timeline for handling AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 policy appeal

Hi Andrew

Thank you so much for yet another book. I will read it over a SODABI (local Dry Gin) this weekend.

But just so that we put issues into perspective, everyone in this community now knows your true hidden agenda which is, to promote IPv$ through inbound and outbound transfer policies hence your anti SL-BIS stand knowing very well that this policy takes care of everyone in time of scarcity and also influences IPv6 deployment in AFRICA.


From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at>
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2018 3:44:26 AM
To: Marcus K. G. Adomey; Owen DeLong; Boubakar Barry
Cc: rpd List
Subject: RE: [rpd] Timeline for handling AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 policy appeal

Ahhhh Marcus,

Your emails always manage to make me smile – purely for the amusement factor they bring.

There is just so much inaccuracy and so many unsubstantiated and factually incorrect statements – that they really do make me laugh – but in the interests of putting the record straight.

- They are against this policy,
- Hey this one is accurate – for substantiated, well stated, and oft repeated reasons
- They are against those who proposed the policy,
- I can’t speak for others on this point, but let me state, I am not against Alain, and Joe Kimali who’s name is on this policy, technically used to work for me, and I have immense respect for him.  I do not AGREE with the assertions made in this policy – but it was in Mauritius where Alain and I stood and attempted to negotiate compromise on this very topic – where we walked to the microphone together, united, to withdraw – it was one individual who threw a spanner in the works.  So no – I am not against the authors of this policy – and I am willing to debate with them – and converse with them – on any topic where substantiation is given.  I am also willing to agree to disagree with them when common ground cannot be found.  This simply means we do not have consensus.

- They are against the Co-Chairs,
- Again – not speaking for others, but for myself, I am not against the co-chairs.  I am against how they interpreted consensus, I am against what I view as violation of due process, and I believe they made some pretty big mistakes.  That does not mean I am against them as people.  I have no problem with either person as an individual – just their decisions in this regard.

- They are against the process
- This is just factually inaccurate.  Again speaking for myself, I am not against the process – I am against the violation of process.  That is a very different thing, in fact it is diametrically opposite to what you have said.  I am against conflict of interest, I am against the abdication of duty, I am against not following process that was defined and agreed on to the letter of the process.

- They are against the Board
- This is yet again, speaking for myself, not accurate.  There are individuals on the board that I have a lot of respect for, there are others, who, well not so much, however, your statement implies that we are anti the board as an entity.  Not so.  I am against many of the actions of the board.  I am against what I believe is a lack of transparency in many areas of the board.  I personally believe a strong, united, transparent, clued up board is critical or organisational functioning.

- They are now meddling with the process of the appeal committee and against its process now.
- This is unsubstantiated nonsense.  There has been no meddling in the process – there have been substantiated objections to outsourcing of work from the committee to a third party who can be clearly demonstrated to have a conflict of interest which could influence the result.
Do they have a hidden agenda?

  *   On the contrary – I don’t think our agenda is hidden at all.  It’s been pretty clearly stated.  We want the decision to declare consensus on a policy we honestly believe has no consensus, cleared invalid.  We want a policy that we believe is harmful to the consumer, and to the growth of the internet, stopped.  We want to ensure process is followed where we believe it has been violated.  I would say we’ve been pretty damn transparent about our agenda.
So – now that that’s covered – let’s talk for a minute about one or two things I truly am against:

  *   I am against unsubstantiated statements that are spun as fact but have no grounding, no backing, and no explained reasoning behind them
  *   I am against individuals at a microphone stating support or opposition for a proposal while reading said stance from a piece of paper, and when questioned on said stance, showing that they have not actually read the policy in question nor do they understand it.
  *   As much as I find it a huge (and rather amusing) compliment – I am against statements that I am some kind of David Koresh of the Southern and Eastern African ICT sector, leading a cult of blind followers who cannot think for themselves – because while I find it very amusing and complimentary that people believe I hold that kind of sway – I find it deeply insulting to those that are claimed follow me blindly – without any reason to do so.
  *   I am against promises made and promises broken, particularly promises made in public forums at the microphone to produce backing and documents to prove points that are never delivered on or substantiated.
  *   I am against opposition or support for a policy purely on racial, geopolitical or linguistic grounds – I believe that opposition or support must be clearly and concisely stated and backed by rationale that can be documented and is found in proven reality.
  *   I am against discounting opinion purely because it matches the opinion of someone you choose to hate – and the categorization of any opinion that is in synch with one person’s opinion as some kind of blind following – despite those opinions being articulated and substantiated.
  *   I am against members of the academic community defying every academic principle by engaging in debate that is not driven by fact, substantiation or empirical research – since I believe such actions bring the entire academic sector in Africa into disrepute.
  *   Finally – I am strongly against “Whataboutism” – the old soviet propaganda tool used to great affect at the moment by the current president of the United States – changing any subject where the debate is not going your way by pointing at someone else’s perceived wrong doing – be it real or fiction – and thereby implying that all actions, regardless of context, have moral equivalency.
Again – I speak for myself, and I just looked behind me, there are no blind sheep following me – there just happen to be those that agree with me.  Thanks again though for those who imply that I am some kind of magnetic cult leader with a huge following of sheep, it really is an ego boost to be thought of as that dynamic and charismatic that I could achieve such levels of control, however bizarre and inaccurate such thoughts are.

From: Boubakar Barry <boubakarbarry at<mailto:boubakarbarry at>>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:14:29 PM
To: Owen DeLong
Cc: rpd List
Subject: Re: [rpd] Timeline for handling AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 policy appeal

To be honest, I don’t understand why we keep wasting time in this.

As many have stated, the Appeal Committee has communicated a timeline.

Why can’t we just wait for the committee to come back to us with its analysis and conclusion?

Too much time wasting here.


On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 at 18:38, Owen DeLong <owen at<mailto:owen at>> wrote:
The point is nobody was attacking the committee. We were raising an objection to something we perceived as an improper procedural intent expressed by said committee and requesting that intent be rectified.

No malice, no ad hominem, no attack, no lack of faith, just a simple attempt to correct what we perceived as an error.


On Jan 25, 2018, at 06:17, Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at<mailto:badru.ntege at>> wrote:

You see we are now all speculating on a potential outcome of the work and then even anticipating consequences of a decision that might not be expected by parties by the “can of worms” statement.

I think right now all that is not at all necessary.

From: Saul Stein <saul at<mailto:saul at>>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 3:26 PM
To: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at<mailto:badru.ntege at>>, Noah <noah at<mailto:noah at>>, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at<mailto:seeburn.k at>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at<mailto:rpd at>>
Subject: RE: [rpd] Timeline for handling AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 policy appeal


No-one is saying that the committee mustn’t get on with their work, the comments are based on the reference:

>1. Appeal Committee 1st Meeting – 19/01/2018 – week 1
>c. List and request documents from AFRINIC that the Committee deems needed for the Appeal including i. RPD discussion summary on the policy

The points that have been made are that since this is an appeal, the appeal committee should be drawing their own conclusions from the source documents, not other subjective reports and summaries.
We’d hate for the appeal committee to base their responses on summaries as that could lead to a rejection as vital pertinent information might be omitted in the summary. That would open a serious can of worms!

That is the way I see this, if I am incorrect, please correct me (and please, only corrections from the appeal committee members, otherwise its hearsay and not fact.)

My 2c

From: Badru Ntege [mailto:badru.ntege at]
Sent: 25 January 2018 01:40 PM
To: Noah <noah at<mailto:noah at>>; Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at<mailto:seeburn.k at>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at<mailto:rpd at>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Timeline for handling AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 policy appeal

Members Members

We are all acting like the end of the world is nigh !!!

We have a committee that we have entrusted as the final Arbitrator.

Lets await the outcome and also be ready to accept the outcome and move on with AfriNIC work.


From: Noah <noah at<mailto:noah at>>
Date: Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 11:58 AM
To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k at<mailto:seeburn.k at>>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at<mailto:rpd at>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Timeline for handling AFPUB-2016-V4-001-DRAFT07 policy appeal

On 25 Jan 2018 11:49 a.m., "Kris Seeburn" <seeburn.k at<mailto:seeburn.k at>> wrote:
I am not going going in circles i have faith that the independent appeals committee is gona do the job. But i’d prefer they do in in their own mind not to involve others such as staff to come to conclusion. But i’m saying i support them without them being influenced that’s my only issue. The people in the committee are laudable and respected by the community. I dont doubt that at all. But not to be influenced by emails, staff, or board. Thats what everyone wants.


And am waiting to see something right.

You are doubting still.

Anyways, what is that something right?

Which would raise afrinic’s place in the RIR space.

Was AFRINIC place is the RIR space low which needs raising? [1]


[1]IMHO, AFRINIC has done a great job since its inception unless if you think otherwise. We should all be proud.

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at><>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list