[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Anne-vivien Paris]

Hi, I would like to clarify the following:

1. There is no any form of NDA required to be signed by our fellow. The
materials we distribute are in public domain; everyone can access to it.
The content is unbiased and factual and we do not keep it as something
confidential. We do not know where you procure this and with what means,
but the content is accessible to anyone who place a request on it. All
arguments listed on the booklet are selected from discussions on the RDP
list with the names of the author given out of consideration of
anti-plagiarism and respect. Hence, pros and cons represent the opinion of
the community instead of that of the Foundation.

2.  The Foundation is a registered NGO in Hong Kong which is independent of
any other organisation. The foundation has its own legal entity and
structure, and your named  cloud innovation does not interfere with
Foundation’s affairs. We urge you to reconsider your statement and provide
supporting documents/evidences regarding this otherwise we consider this as
defamation.

3.  Larus Foundation does not represent any party’s single interest. As
mentioned in the above, it is a legally registered and recognised NGO which
serves the community instead of a single party. Hence, it is unjust to
correlate the Foundation with any single party and Foundation has never
“hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions”. Your statement does not have
any ground. This can be considered as defamation without any concrete
evidenced provided.

We support fellows of various nationalities to attend RIR meetings,
including but not limited to Tunisia, Uganda, Congo, South Korea and
America. We believe the Internet is One and thus all parties in the world
are concerned. The Foundation believes that we all work towards a single
goal, ie a better Internet irrespective of our nationalities.

We sincerely urge you to re-examine and reconsider your statements to
prevent any unnecessary understanding within the community.

For your reference, Larus Foundation is based in Hong Kong, which serves as
an organisation to promote Internet number resources education. We aim to
educate the general public, regardless of their age, gender, nationality,
race, educational level and background as we believe everyone is a
stakeholder in the world of Internet.  We uphold a non-selective, fair and
transparent principle.

We carry out a series of events, including conferences, seminars, workshops
and fellowship programme. Our fellowship programme provides support for
various parties, particularly students and academics to participate  in
policy-making and Internet governance conferences.

If you are interested about our Foundation, you can find more here:
https://www.larusfoundation.org/

Also, you are welcome to apply for our upcoming fellowship programme for
AFRINIC 31:
https://www.larusfoundation.org/about-the-fellowship/

A brief timeline for your reference:
Application Opened 1st July, 2019
First Interview 30th July, 2019
Application Closed 30th July, 2019
Second Interview 18th August, 2019
Education workshop and seminar 3rd September - 21st September, 2019
Final Interview 24th October, 2019
Result & Confirmation 3rd November, 2019

We can also be reached via email and phone. If you have any questions
regarding the Foundation and its events, please do not hesitate to contact
us.

Vivien
*Vivien PARIS*
*Larus FOUNDATION*
p:+44 7746 416450
w: www.larusfoundation.org
a:B5,11/F,TML Tower,No.3 Hoi Shing Road,Tsuen Wan,HKSAR

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 20:36, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:


> Wafa,

>

> So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies

> – and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.

> Yes, Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but –

> one of the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe

> in something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary

> that I see in this document – is something that by and large – should have

> been done long before they got around to it.

>

> If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free

> to go and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor

> people to come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those

> people as I so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s

> life – but it certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature

> of internet policy development.  Do you think that similar does not happen

> elsewhere?  People lobby for the positions that they care about.  It

> happens in politics, it happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when

> someone else does the same thing.

>

> Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I

> want to quote from the OIF website: *IOF organises political activities

> and actions of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking

> populations.*

>

> Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the

> room with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to

> Africa – it does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does

> not say is to the benefit of the continent – it singles out a single

> demographic on the continent and says – we do what we do for their

> benefit.   Now, let me be very clear, if they wish to do that – I’m

> actually ok with it – though I admit I have waivered on this stance –

> however, we cannot say – because it’s a government political organization –

> it’s ok – but when a member chooses to have a foundation – and sponsor

> people to the meetings – and then lobby for the positions that member is

> passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is called hypocrisy.

>

> In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of

> paper and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the

> same happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the

> position that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they

> had off the paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t

> understand the position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind

> that?  And all of that – is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok

> then – suddenly it changes now because we don’t like the individual doing

> it?

>

> Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is not

> a friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong things

> to say to him to his face, in front of others who will testify to what I

> said to him – however – I respect his rights as a member to participate in

> what is essentially a democratic process, that means – I respect his right

> to lobby for his views, I respect his right to put boots on the ground, and

> I respect his right to have his say.  In the same way – I respect the right

> of any member to do that – and I respect the right of the members to then

> rebut what is said if they do not agree with it.    It is through this

> lobbying position and through the back and forth that accompanies it, that

> great policy is born – it is not through acquiescence, nor is it through

> the silencing of the rights of others.

>

> My view – if anyone wants to come into the room and have their say – so be

> it – that is bottom up.  If people want to lobby their positions – so be it

> – that is bottom up.  If people want to spend money running tv adverts

> about their positions for all I care – so be it – that is the nature of the

> democratic position.  If people want to bus a thousand people who share

> their views – again – so be it – that is the democratic process.   However,

> it is the community who then need to rebut – but – the rebuttal should be

> on the policy itself.  What I see here however, is a rebuttal of policy and

> a lobbying position taken on the **content** of the policy – unlike what

> I have seen time and again in the meetings where the lobbying position has

> NOTHING to do with the content or the policy.

>

> So rather than malign Lazarus for their actions here – quite frankly,

> reading this document, and as much as as I have said, Lu and I have some

> serious differences, I applaud Lazarus for the comprehensive work – and I

> applaud them for taking a stance that was based on the policy and I embrace

> their right to lobby for their position in any way shape or form.  That is

> not to say I agree with the positions taken in this document – I will

> reserve my policy comments for the policies and based on my own

> interpretation of such – but – I embrace the fact that at least, it was

> done based on what was written, and not on personal relationships, personal

> attacks, demographics, or anything else.

>

>

>

> So – to Lazarus – thank you for a job well done in the fact that you

> lobbied your position based on the policies – and left the other garbage

> behind, which is what we so often see.

>

>

>

> Finally – again – I respect the right to do what they did – and

>

>

>

> *THAT IS DEMOCRATIC*

>

>

>

> Thanks

>

>

>

> Andrew

>

>

>

> *From:* wafa DAHMANI <wafa at ati.tn>

> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:30

> *To:* community-discuss at afrinic.net

> *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net

> *Subject:* [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

>

>

>

> Hi

>

>

>

> It fell under public domain, that those who benefited from Larus

> foundation fellowship to attend the last afrinic meeting in Kampala, were

> given a  confidential  Education package on AFRINIC Number Resources Policy

> proposals detailed in the following link:

>

>

>

> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg

>

>

>

> The document lists the proposals to be discussed, Larus Foundation views

> of Pros and Cons on each of them, selective PDWG participants interventions

> on the proposals.

>

>

>

> The education package so proposed intends to condition these participants

> views on the proposals  and their contributions at the PPM and after....

>

>

>

> I like to remind us that the PDP is open for any individual willing to

> participate. Views expressed are personal. No need to know who is behind

> each source email address... only opinions expressed in the context of the

> PDP matter. The substance of contribution really matter. Diversity of views

> are encouraged. Lack of disagreement is more important  than of agreement.

> Also PDP is not a matter of volume, repetition or persistence.

>

>

>

> RFC 7282 section 6 and 7 are clear  on these aspects of  the rough

> consensus  process.

>

>

>

> Section 6

>

> One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough

> consensus.

>

>

>

> Section 7

>

> Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough

> consensus

>

>

>

> My African fellows,

>

>

>

> Your desire to participate to AFRINIC policy development Process is

> legitimate and must be encouraged. I hope the last meeting  was useful to

> you and allow you to identify the issues, understand what is going on and

> what Africa needs...  I hope you’ve made your minds and  now able to speak

> on your personal  capacity..

>

>

>

> The real education package  is as below:

>

> =====

>

>

>

> Proposal to establish AFRINIC

>

>

> http://web01.jnb.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/862-kuala-lumpur-1997

>

>

>

> IANA report  on AFRINIC (Accreditation)

>

> https://www.iana.org/reports/2005/afrinic-report-05aug2005.pdf

>

>

>

> AFRINIC constitution

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws

>

>

>

> Registration Service  Agreement

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa

>

>

>

> AFRINIC policy manual

>

> https://afrinic.net/policy/manual

>

>

>

> AFRINIC policies before the adoption of the CPM

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-pre

>

>

>

> AFRINIC PDP

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/policy

>

>

>

> Rough Consensus

>

> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

>

>

>

> AFRINIC current policy proposals

>

> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals

>

>

>

> RiRs PDPs

>

> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/

>

>

>

> RIR comparative  policy overview

>

> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/rir-comparative-policy-overview/

>

> ==============

>

>

>

> Please read and process them, ask questions and find your way.

>

>

>

> Come build African Internet by Africans.

>

>

>

> As for Larus Foundation, your relationship to cloud innovation, afrinic

> member with suspicious activities, holding 6 millions of IPv4 is long

> established and discussed many times on this list. I hope the fellows would

> find these discussions in the archives.

>

>

>

> I call the attention of the board on the  repetitive attempts of this

> resource member to hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions...  the

> provisions of the bylaws and RSA must  carefully be applied to recall

> members to acceptable code of conduct.

>

>

>

> The African Internet community as well as the global Internet community

> must pay close attention and protect the RIRs Policy development process

> and operations.

>

>

>

>

>

> -Wafa

> _______________________________________________

> Community-Discuss mailing list

> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

>



-- 
*Vivien *
*Larus Cloud Service Limited*
p:+852 29888918
f:+852 29888368
e:a.v.p at laruscloudservice.net
w:laruscloudservice.net/
a:B5,11/F,TML Tower,No.3 Hoi Shing Road,Tsuen Wan,HKSAR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190702/2e4bcf26/attachment-0001.html>