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 <w...@ati.tn>
SENT: Tuesday, 2 July 2019 12:30
TO: community-discuss@afrinic.net
CC: r...@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
