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

[rpd] Larus foundation fellowship

Tue Jul 2 14:09:47 UTC 2019

Hi Andrew,

I’m not sure to agree with your view. I fully agree on freedom of expression, but there is a fairness and transparency point here. It is about respect to the PDP (and consequently the community).

When anyone present a summary of a policy proposal (which has been done already by the authors) you’re directly or indirectly doing your own analysis and arguing for or against based on your own perspective. This is influencing participants, it can be never 100% unbiassed.

Everybody is *free* to influence (or as you say lobby), but the fair way to do so is by discussing in the RPD mailing list, which is meant for that. Otherwise why we have the list?

If that document was shared in the list, upfront the meeting, instead of being presented only for the fellows, that will had made a difference.

Also, looking at the document we may be having part of the information that was provided during that presentation.

I think is wonderful that organizations like Larus Foundation may bring people to participate in the meetings, but why this needs to be done by their own instead of they just providing the money to Afrinic, agree in the selections process and not having direct contact with the fellows?

I’ve mention about this already long time ago:

And by the way, the PDP is not about democracy, but consensus.

As a proposals author, I’ve *never* tried to convince anyone outside the PDP list. I think this is the only way to be fair. I got many questions and opinions about the policy proposals in private emails, and my response is always the same: what you tell me here is not so “useful”, please go to the list.

Moreover, I sometimes send tweets about my policy proposals, but in a very neutral way, just informative and clearly stating that the discussion must happen in the list. Example:




El 2/7/19 14:39, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at> escribió:


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




From: wafa DAHMANI <wafa at>
Sent: Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:30
To: community-discuss at
Cc: rpd at
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship


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:

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

IANA report on AFRINIC (Accreditation)

AFRINIC constitution

Registration Service Agreement

AFRINIC policy manual

AFRINIC policies before the adoption of the CPM


Rough Consensus

AFRINIC current policy proposals


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.


_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list