Search RPD Archives
[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship
Tom Ochang
dontommy24 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 2 15:20:50 UTC 2019
Hello there,
I am an advocate for freedom of speech and expression and I think
that what Larus foundation did was to do a summary of the policies to
enable it's fellows to understand the policies better before discussions
during the PDP and concerning the 16million IP addresses, I don't think
Larus Stole them but I guess they were acquired legally by Larus
foundation. Finally, I urge Larus foundation to put more effort in making
summaries of all the policies that are meant to be discussed during the PDP
and also place it in a public domain for newbies.
..Tom Ochang
Nigeria.
On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 16:04 Andrew Alston, <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
wrote:
> Just one final thought on this –
>
> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Friends of Voltaire, 1906)
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 July 2019 15:34
> *To:* wafa DAHMANI <wafa at ati.tn>; community-discuss at afrinic.net
> *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship
>
>
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190702/31bd1c24/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list