[Community-Discuss] Use of space outside of application

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

I have one question - and I'm going to keep this brief.

If AfriNIC wants to reclaim space based on it not being used as originally 
applied for -


  1.  Are AfriNIC going to go after every member who applied for space for use 
on dial up systems more than a decade ago - and repurposed that space when 
dialup died.
  2.  How are AfriNIC going to equitably enforce this - when they lost most of 
the documentation around applications pre 2009 - due to a data corruption issue 
- such that they can no longer actually show how space was applied for
  3.  Is this a case of selective enforcement based on - we don't like this guy?

As for out of region space - I point out - that Dubai -is RIPE service region - 
not Afrinic's - will be curious to see if AfriNIC is going to be selective in 
that regard - considering allocation levels.

Look - here is my take on this - someone applied for space - they were granted 
it - as per policy - policy this community chose not to change - and now - 
while I have my own views on Lu and others - I my personal opinion is that this 
is selective targeting and nothing more than that - it is dangerous in the 
extreme because it makes AfriNIC god judge and jury over virtually every player 
on the continent - it gives them the ability to shut down companies at will in 
effect through the same vague arguments where they are not equitably applying 
the rules - and if AfriNIC wishes to play this card - let them play it equally 
and fairly against every single member - and see what is left of the African 
internet ecosystem once they do.

Andrew

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Sorry - the board doesn’t get credit for finding a potential workaround out of 
a hole they dug by themselves - that’s the equivalent of saying you 
congratulate the guy who jumped off a cliff with no parachute and some how 
survived.

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Arnaud AMELINA 
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 11:53:16 AM
To: Paul Wollner 
Cc: Community Discuss ; members-discuss 
; chair 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

Hu! Je suis vraiment surpris par la réaction de certains membres on 
diraient qu'ils font tout pour voir Afrinic échouer dans sa gestion, mais ce 
sont eux qui échoueront. Au lieu de féliciter le Board d'avoir trouver le moyen 
quelqu'il soit d'assurer la continuité des services, vous vous plaignez de la 
transparence sans même attendre que le rapport de leur réunion ne soit 
disponible. On vous demande un peu d'indulgence vis à vis du Board qui fait de 
son mieux.

N'en déplaise à ce qui cherche à se réjouir de leur hypothétique échec.

FELLICITATION ET BON COURAGE AU BOARD. ON VOUS SOUTIENT.

--
Arnaud

Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 05:36, Paul Wollner 
mailto:paul.woll...@africaoncloud.net>> a écrit 
:
Dear Chair,

Would you care to share with the community where this alternative source of 
funding is coming from? Are these funds coming from other AFRINIC reserves?

How will this impact the day to day operations in AFRINIC?

Regards
Paul Wollner





 On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:25:40 +0200 
mailto:ch...@afrinic.net>> wrote 

Dear AFRINIC Members,

AFRINIC has been notified by one of its bank that its accounts have
been temporary frozen due to legal action by Cloud Innovation
Ltd. AFRINIC has not yet received the relevant information on this
matter showing the basis of Cloud Innovation Ltd's claims, and
AFRINIC has not yet been given the opportunity to respond to this
action. It will, at the first opportunity, exercise all legal rights
available to it before the Court.

The Board of Directors held an urgent meeting last night. It
identified alternate means of funding so that the company can cover
the financial expenses incurred to run its services.

Regards,

Subramanian Moonesamy
Chairman,
AFRINIC Board of Directors


___
Members-Discuss mailing list
members-disc...@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

If the board is incurring debt and loaning money against frozen bank accounts 
with no guarantee of the ability to repay those loans - that’s textbook 
recklesss trading and almost certainly illegal

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss 
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 1:12:37 PM
To: Community Discuss ; members-discuss 
; chair 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case


The NRO, manages a fund, if I recall correctly, contributed by the 5 RIRs, in 
order to secure sustainability/stability of any RIR in case of contingencies.



I guess this is a contingency that can apply to that fund, so a “loan” can be 
provided to pay any operational expenses while the AFRINIC accounts are frozen.



So, no magic to obtain fund to continue operations, and in such way that no new 
court orders could froze them again, because is not “AFRINIC” money, and don’t 
need to pass by the AFRINIC accounts.



Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet







Greetings to all

While we respect that AFRINIC just held a meeting on the issue, can we expect 
sooner or later a report from the registry about how the meeting went? And most 
especially, I think the community deserves clarity about the identified 
"alternative means" as we would all like to know more about these projected 
financial actions. I hope that we can observe more efforts from AFRINIC to 
ensure transparency on its decisions and on whatever action it may choose to 
commit.




Respectfully,
Christian



On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 1:34 PM Paul Wollner 
mailto:paul.woll...@africaoncloud.net>> wrote:

Dear Chair,



Would you care to share with the community where this alternative source of 
funding is coming from? Are these funds coming from other AFRINIC reserves?



How will this impact the day to day operations in AFRINIC?



Regards

Paul Wollner











 On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 18:25:40 +0200 
mailto:ch...@afrinic.net>> wrote 



Dear AFRINIC Members,

AFRINIC has been notified by one of its bank that its accounts have
been temporary frozen due to legal action by Cloud Innovation
Ltd. AFRINIC has not yet received the relevant information on this
matter showing the basis of Cloud Innovation Ltd's claims, and
AFRINIC has not yet been given the opportunity to respond to this
action. It will, at the first opportunity, exercise all legal rights
available to it before the Court.

The Board of Directors held an urgent meeting last night. It
identified alternate means of funding so that the company can cover
the financial expenses incurred to run its services.

Regards,

Subramanian Moonesamy
Chairman,
AFRINIC Board of Directors


___
Members-Discuss mailing list
members-disc...@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss





___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

___ Community-Discuss mailing list 
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

**
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
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.

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

What absolute nonsense - unless there is an NDA protecting the relationship 
people are free to disclose.

That’s like saying I can’t state that I buy jeans from party X - internet 
services from party Y - or eat a particular brand of chocolate.

Sorry unless there are confidentiality clauses in place - absolute rubbish - 
and if there are - that is between the buyer and the seller and has nothing to 
do with anyone on here

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Meriem Dayday 
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 6:53:45 PM
To: Leo S 
Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their 
business

Hello,

This is a direct violation of the CoC.

Disclosing such information and data without the company’s consent is a clear 
attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the concerned person.

Having a business or other relationship with the said company does not give you 
the right to divulge such details on a public mailing list. That is quite 
appalling.

Please refrain from violating the CoC and attacking entities in such manner. It 
can only be troublesome.

I am urging the PDWG chairs to act immediately by sanctioning the sender and 
deleting this delicate email from the list.


Best,

Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 15:39, Leo S 
mailto:le...@afcast.com>> a écrit :

About Cloud Innovation Ltd I want to talk about their business model.

They got 7 Million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC at a price of $10,000 USD per 
year, and then leased them to ISPs or end users at a price of ~2 USD/year/IPv4 
(large block in 2018 if Small block may be more expensive maybe $3 USD) and 
with an annual increase of 15% fee from the price


So the cost is $10,000 USD

Revenue is 7M x 2 = 14 Million

so it’s 15% profit


Part of the cost is spent on RIR community activities and seeking support from 
members, and money will be used to defeat those who oppose it.

Are there any people in the world who don't love money? Those who accept their 
money will support them in the community. and questioned any action of 
discussion that would be detrimental to them.


Of course, this is Lu Heng.

He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few years 
later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart and knows 
who should pay the money to.



To rent an IP address from Cloud Innovation Ltd, you do not need to use their 
network services and circuits. Exactly they don't provide network service. and 
I think 90% of IP addresses are used in North America and Asia



I don't know much about AFRINIC's policy. But in ARIN you must have a circuit 
or network service then you can rent an IP address from the provider.


The AFRINIC internal audit action may be detrimental to Cloud Innovation Ltd, 
so they started some network services in South Africa last year as Africa on 
cloud. but it's a small network. I think the revenue from these services may 
account for less than 10% of their revenue. so 90% of their revenue still from 
IPv4 address leasing business


It can be seen from their income that they have enough money to support the 
lawsuit against AFRINIC. And spend money in the community to fight for their 
address not to be revoked.

very sad AFRINIC is too poor


By the way, I was also their customer before




___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their business

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

I’m a little confused - can you clarify which part of what post is a personal 
attack - there are multiple posts in this thread. The statement about people 
don’t wanting africa to succeed would be my guess but I wanna be sure

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Wijdane Goubi 
Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 7:16:12 PM
To: Leo S 
Cc: Community Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Share About Cloud Innovation Ltd and their 
business


This is a blatant personal attack, and I'm still baffled as to why such attacks 
are still tolerated. As a result, I'm asking the board to remove this, and I'm 
asking the community to address similar behaviors when people are attacked in 
their person.

Continuing to engage in such actions is both urgent and dangerous; it only 
serves to hold us back as a community. Therefore, I urge the community to call 
out those who engage in such behaviors and work together to make this community 
a better place for all of us.


Regards,

Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 18:06, Leo S 
mailto:le...@afcast.com>> a écrit :
Sorry I know I said something bad for Cloud Innovation Ltd, but this is the 
truth. If they want to sue me, there is no problem, please come to Myanmar.


On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:53 PM Meriem Dayday 
mailto:meriemday...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello,

This is a direct violation of the CoC.

Disclosing such information and data without the company’s consent is a clear 
attempt of defamation and can have legal consequences on the concerned person.

Having a business or other relationship with the said company does not give you 
the right to divulge such details on a public mailing list. That is quite 
appalling.

Please refrain from violating the CoC and attacking entities in such manner. It 
can only be troublesome.

I am urging the PDWG chairs to act immediately by sanctioning the sender and 
deleting this delicate email from the list.


Best,

Le dim. 25 juil. 2021 à 15:39, Leo S 
mailto:le...@afcast.com>> a écrit :

About Cloud Innovation Ltd I want to talk about their business model.

They got 7 Million IPv4 addresses from AFRINIC at a price of $10,000 USD per 
year, and then leased them to ISPs or end users at a price of ~2 USD/year/IPv4 
(large block in 2018 if Small block may be more expensive maybe $3 USD) and 
with an annual increase of 15% fee from the price


So the cost is $10,000 USD

Revenue is 7M x 2 = 14 Million

so it’s 15% profit


Part of the cost is spent on RIR community activities and seeking support from 
members, and money will be used to defeat those who oppose it.

Are there any people in the world who don't love money? Those who accept their 
money will support them in the community. and questioned any action of 
discussion that would be detrimental to them.


Of course, this is Lu Heng.

He also plundered tens of thousands of IP addresses from RIPE and A few years 
later sold to vodafone and earned millions of dollars. He is smart and knows 
who should pay the money to.



To rent an IP address from Cloud Innovation Ltd, you do not need to use their 
network services and circuits. Exactly they don't provide network service. and 
I think 90% of IP addresses are used in North America and Asia



I don't know much about AFRINIC's policy. But in ARIN you must have a circuit 
or network service then you can rent an IP address from the provider.


The AFRINIC internal audit action may be detrimental to Cloud Innovation Ltd, 
so they started some network services in South Africa last year as Africa on 
cloud. but it's a small network. I think the revenue from these services may 
account for less than 10% of their revenue. so 90% of their revenue still from 
IPv4 address leasing business


It can be seen from their income that they have enough money to support the 
lawsuit against AFRINIC. And spend money in the community to fight for their 
address not to be revoked.

very sad AFRINIC is too poor


By the way, I was also their customer before




___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Code of conduct - this message implies corruption that is unproved on the part 
of both CI and previous management.

Can we stop with the unjustified attacks and mud slinging please

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Leo S 
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 14:45
To: Ali Hussein
Cc: Community Discuss
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

Yes I agree It's just that the management of AFRINIC may have changed with 
previous years.
Although some people in the community questioned Cloud Innovation Ltd in the 
past few years, AFRINIC did not take any action, but now it has taken action. 
Maybe Cloud Innovation Ltd did not use their money well. Lead to the current 
ending, Cloud Innovation Ltd losing ground in management team of AFRINIC


On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 5:31 PM Ali Hussein 
mailto:a...@hussein.me.ke>> wrote:
It is a political game. Hence my post of yesterday. This is a wider 
conversation about African Internet Resources and who controls them. Let's be 
very careful not to be looped into non-issues. The MOST IMPORTANT conversation 
we MUST have is this:-

1. Who controls AFRINIC today.
2. Who will control it tomorrow.
3. Who is out to ensure that Board Members are aligned to which grouping.
4. Who are these groups?
5.  Corporate Governance is a major issue here. Whilst I believe this is being 
handled and that it's a process we must be clear going forward that shedding 
light on all matters is super-critical. Light has a way of removing all 
crawling things out of the shadows and into the light. The Board's Fiduciary 
Responsibility has never been more important than ever.


Ali Hussein

Digital Transformation


Tel: +254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: 
http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim



Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine 
and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that 
I work with.


On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 9:46 AM Leo S 
mailto:le...@afcast.com>> wrote:
Very funny, it looks like a political game

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:33 PM Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
wrote:


On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 6:43 PM Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:


On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:35, Omo Oaiya 
mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net>> wrote:



On 27 Jul 2021, at 07:54, Ronald F. Guilmette 
mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:


In any case, the data at the link above demonstrates quite persuasively that
there *is* some finite non-zero business relationship between Africa on Cloud
on the one hand and Cloud Innovation on the other hand.  I personally have
no idea what that relationship is, or what it may signify, and thus I
personally do not care to jump to any specific conclusion about that
relationship, or its possible significance or insignificance.  But to try
to deny that there exists -any- relationship whatsoever, in spite of the
clear evidence, is worse than disingenuous.  It is silly.

I did not deny that a relationship exists. I pointed out that there is no 
evidence presented to indicate that it is anything more than customer/supplier.

In the last board elections where Elkins defeated Paul Wolner, there were 
multiple resource members who received phone calls from HongKong asking them to 
vote for Wolner.

Check the archives.

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Code of conduct call again - this mail is blatantly libelous

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: DANIEL NANGHAKA 
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 17:06
To: Leo S
Cc: Community Discuss
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Update on legal case

I will be so kind to say that following the various threads, I do not want to 
make an unnecessary judgement but instead of building on the Internet 
Development in Africa, Cloud Innovation Ltd came to Kill, Steal and Destroy 
AFRINIC.

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 14:44, Leo S mailto:le...@afcast.com>> 
wrote:
Yes I agree It's just that the management of AFRINIC may have changed with 
previous years.
Although some people in the community questioned Cloud Innovation Ltd in the 
past few years, AFRINIC did not take any action, but now it has taken action. 
Maybe Cloud Innovation Ltd did not use their money well. Lead to the current 
ending, Cloud Innovation Ltd losing ground in management team of AFRINIC


On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 5:31 PM Ali Hussein 
mailto:a...@hussein.me.ke>> wrote:
It is a political game. Hence my post of yesterday. This is a wider 
conversation about African Internet Resources and who controls them. Let's be 
very careful not to be looped into non-issues. The MOST IMPORTANT conversation 
we MUST have is this:-

1. Who controls AFRINIC today.
2. Who will control it tomorrow.
3. Who is out to ensure that Board Members are aligned to which grouping.
4. Who are these groups?
5.  Corporate Governance is a major issue here. Whilst I believe this is being 
handled and that it's a process we must be clear going forward that shedding 
light on all matters is super-critical. Light has a way of removing all 
crawling things out of the shadows and into the light. The Board's Fiduciary 
Responsibility has never been more important than ever.


Ali Hussein

Digital Transformation


Tel: +254 713 601113

Twitter: @AliHKassim

Skype: abu-jomo

LinkedIn: 
http://ke.linkedin.com/in/alihkassim



Any information of a personal nature expressed in this email are purely mine 
and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the organizations that 
I work with.


On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 9:46 AM Leo S 
mailto:le...@afcast.com>> wrote:
Very funny, it looks like a political game

On Wed, Jul 28, 2021 at 2:33 PM Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
wrote:


On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 6:43 PM Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:


On Jul 27, 2021, at 00:35, Omo Oaiya 
mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net>> wrote:



On 27 Jul 2021, at 07:54, Ronald F. Guilmette 
mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote:


In any case, the data at the link above demonstrates quite persuasively that
there *is* some finite non-zero business relationship between Africa on Cloud
on the one hand and Cloud Innovation on the other hand.  I personally have
no idea what that relationship is, or what it may signify, and thus I
personally do not care to jump to any specific conclusion about that
relationship, or its possible significance or insignificance.  But to try
to deny that there exists -any- relationship whatsoever, in spite of the
clear evidence, is worse than disingenuous.  It is silly.

I did not deny that a relationship exists. I pointed out that there is no 
evidence presented to indicate that it is anything more than customer/supplier.

In the last board elections where Elkins defeated Paul Wolner, there were 
multiple resource members who received phone calls from HongKong asking them to 
vote for Wolner.

Check the archives.

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] STATEMENT OF TANZANIA ISP ASSOCIATION (TISPA) - Regarding AFRINIC

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Noah - let me just be clear on something.

Do you claim to speak for TISPA and all its members?

Are you claiming that all TISPA members endorse AfriNIC and it’s behavior in 
this matter?

I just want clarification on this…

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 12:38:31 AM
To: Paul Wollner 
Cc: Community Discuss ; AfriNIC Discuss 

Subject: Re: [members-discuss] STATEMENT OF TANZANIA ISP ASSOCIATION (TISPA) 
-        Regarding AFRINIC

Paul,

On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, 23:49 Paul Wollner, 
mailto:paul.woll...@africaoncloud.net>> wrote:
Noah,

TISPA does not in anyway express their support for AFRINIC’s litigation,

Don't get it twisted by inserting the word "litigation".

your message is highly misleading.

Nothing misleading

Our support of solidarity is with AFRINIC. We state the facts as to what 
AFRINIC is to this service region.  We conclude as below in our STATEMENT.

Any impact of the services of AFRINIC would have a much larger impact on 
Internet communication in Africa.

While the legal proceedings should take their due course, we would humbly like 
to suggest that no actions are taken that can impact the operation of AFRINIC 
as the registry of Internet Numbering Resources (IP addresses and ASNs) or can 
impact AFRINIC’s function of publishing the associated data.

TISPA is an AFRINIC member and also represents 22 AFRINIC Resource members in 
Tanzania who are TISPA members.

Cheers,
Noah

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] STATEMENT OF TANZANIA ISP ASSOCIATION (TISPA) - Regarding AFRINIC

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

So - while you seem certainly capable of spinning narrative and typing pages of 
stuff to fill my inbox - you seem incapable of addressing some pretty simple 
questions - that had nothing to do with the statement but rather the consistent 
use of words like “Our” and “We” etc etc in reference to said statement.

Now - let me say this - I do not believe that at this point it is correct to 
ascribe support - or lack there of - for any legal position - to any company or 
organization without their explicit approval for such.

And I know for a fact that such does not exist in the case of every TISPA 
member - on either the approve or disapprove side.

Furthermore Noah - while I 100% agree with Paul that the statement in so far as 
it expresses concern about disruption is 100% fine - I take exception to you 
spinning it into an endorsement of AfriNIC behavior which it plainly wasn’t

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 1:41:20 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Paul Wollner ; Community Discuss 
; AfriNIC Discuss 
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] STATEMENT OF TANZANIA ISP ASSOCIATION (TISPA) 
-        Regarding AFRINIC



On Fri, 30 Jul 2021, 11:33 Andrew Alston, 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
Noah - let me just be clear on something.

Do you claim to speak for TISPA and all its members?

Read the statement.


Are you claiming that all TISPA members endorse AfriNIC and it’s behavior in 
this matter?

Read the statement.


I just want clarification on this…

Read the TISPA statement.

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

It is my (personal) view that AfriNIC board should exercise their powers and 
pass a transfer policy.

Let those who wish to run the risks of staying with AfriNIC through this 
situation do so - let those who choose not to accept the risk profile transfer 
out - problem solved.

It is entirely within the boards powers to pass emergency policy which the 
community can revoke at the next pdp should they wish to do so - and if AfriNIC 
has the support claimed by members of this list there is absolutely zero risk 
in this approach.

Furthermore - such an approach would also remove the possibility of other legal 
action which may be taken against them on grounds removed from the current 
legal situation

I remind everyone that AfriNIC has a duty to act in the interests of its 
members - and AfriNIC has repeatedly stated in the press - and has been echoed 
by various ISP associations that there is risk here - it should therefore stand 
that AfriNIC provide members with a way to mitigate said risk if it is within 
their powers to do so

Again - a personal view - and again - I explicitly will not comment on the 
merits or demerits of this case - since I believe that the legal system should 
run its course and be the final arbiter of what is correct in this situation.  
In fact I find the amount of legal posturing on this list to be nothing short 
of bizarre - let the courts do their work - but let members mitigate their 
risks as they see fit


Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Taiwo Oye 
Sent: Sunday, August 1, 2021 3:00:32 PM
To: Paul Wollner 
Cc: arin-discuss ; secretariat ; 
Community Discuss ; apnic-talk 
; ripe-list ; Members Discuss 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration 
to other RIRs

Good day all,

I think paul made some sense in his first statement (tho the statement has been 
watered down now).

If afrinic is in a financial fix or in a state where it is tending towards a 
financial situation where it can no longer perform its duties, it is only right 
to start weighing all viable options to keep the registry afloat.
Paul made a suggestion - tho a bit aggressively - about the NRO coming to save 
the region.
I will like the community to see this as “option 1”.

Does any other community member have any better suggestion in the (not so 
likely) situation that afrinic does not have the financial capability to carry 
out its duties?

If so, please lay them out for discussion amongst the community members.

If not, Option 1 remains the only alternative to cushion the effect of the 
financial breakdown.

That being said. I think we should think in the direction of way forward and 
have a plan ready rather than crucifying Paul for being proactive.

On Aug 1, 2021, at 11:01, Paul Wollner  wrote:



Hello community

I think I  misused the word “take over” to spike some unfortunate sentiments.

Let me try this again:
In the interest of internet continuity, another RIR should help AFRINIC (by 
staff or infrastructure), to perform it’s core registration service function 
for the time being, until all AFRINIC litigation has been sorted to avoid 
disruption to our African end users and businesses.

Regards
Paul



 On Thu, 29 Jul 2021 23:38:32 +0200 Paul Wollner 
 wrote 

Apologies for the duplicate post, but the initial posting was too large.

The concerns expressed by TISPA, as well as other concerned parties and 
especially by AFRINIC's  own admission in the news outlet lexpress.mu, which is 
available at https://ibb.co/tmWCk0k, regarding the 
AFRINIC’s inability to keep providing its core registry functions due to its 
inability to meet its financial requirements.

I suggest that in order not hold end users, ISPs and any other business's 
hostage, for the interest of continue service of AFRINIC’s core registry 
service, we should urgently call for NRO fulfil their responsibility as well as 
commitment to the global internet to take over AFRINIC’s registration service 
for the time being, until litigation is settled some time later. 
(https://www.nro.net/accountability/rir-accountability/joint-rir-stability-fund/)

That way, no end user or business will ever impacted however results come out 
of litigation.

Regards
Paul Wollner






___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Hi Noah,

Unfortunately an inbound transfer policy does not in any way shape or form 
mitigate the risks articulated in the TISPA, ISPA-ZA or Mauritian press 
statements by AfriNIC.

It is my belief that members should be permitted to transfer away from the 
risks articulated should they feel such risk justifies such.

Again - if the support is there and members do not feel such risk is indeed 
valid - such a transfer policy will impose no risk on AfriNIC - it will however 
let members make the choice of what is right for their respective businesses 
and is in the best interests of members

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Noah 
Sent: Sunday, August 1, 2021 4:06:29 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Taiwo Oye ; Paul Wollner 
; Community Discuss 
; Members Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration 
to other RIRs


On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, 15:43 Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss, 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:

Let those who wish to run the risks of staying with AfriNIC through this 
situation do so
- let those who choose not to accept the risk profile transfer out - problem 
solved.

https://afrinic.net/policy/archive/inbound-transfer-policy<https://afrinic.net/policy/archive/inbound-transfer-policy>

Noah
PS: confusion of the highest order.
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

> It remains Andrew's personal opinion and not the consensus of 75% of the 
> membership base.

Can I suggest as a compromise position we then test this theory by putting the 
question of transfers  to a member vote passed or failed by simple majority?

This worked for ripe with rpki when they took it to a members vote outside of 
the pdp… why not here?

Andrew

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

This is incorrect and in line actually with what I said -


11.4) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 11.3 above, the Board may adopt 
such policies regarding the management of internet number resources where it 
considers that the same is necessary and urgent, having regard to the proper 
and responsible usage of these resources. [Amended at the 2020 AGMM]

11.5) Endorsement of the policy adopted by the Board:

  1.  Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article11.4 shall 
be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public policy meeting.
  2.  In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, 
the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its 
non-endorsement; however, any action taken in terms of the policy prior to such 
non-endorsement shall remain valid.

The board can pass a policy - valid till the next policy meeting - and if the 
community doesn’t like it they can reverse it - in the mean time those who feel 
the threat is to great can move in the intervening period.

The board can - and does - have the power to implement policy valid till the 
next of wg

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Sunday, August 1, 2021 11:48:48 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Owen DeLong ; Community Discuss 
; Members Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration 
to other RIRs

Hi Andrew,

On Sun, Aug 1, 2021 at 11:30 PM Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:


> It remains Andrew's personal opinion and not the consensus of 75% of the 
> membership base.

Can I suggest as a compromise position we then test this theory by putting the 
question of transfers  to a member vote passed or failed by simple majority?

Seeing that policy development is a matter of the PDWG community as CPM and 
Bylaws section 11.3),  the majority membership dont have powers to do so and I 
was teasing Owen with that 75% and since the Bylaws amendment of 2020 in 
section 11.5) i and ii, not even the board has powers anymore to enforce any 
policy without the endorsement and consensus of the PDWG community.


This worked for ripe with rpki when they took it to a members vote outside of 
the pdp… why not here?

What worked in RIPE does not necessarily have to work here and we have shared 
the same sentiments with Jordi within the PDWG discussions.

Cheers
Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Not at all - I quote:

In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, the 
said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its non-endorsement;
however, any action taken in terms of the policy prior to such non-endorsement 
shall remain valid.

This clearly states that action can happen before the endorsement and remains 
valid - and it says shall. It be enforced or implemented *following its 
non-endorsement* - it is silent about pre-endorsement and then by implication 
states that there can be action pre pdp decision

Andrew


Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 00:26
To: Andrew Alston
Cc: Owen DeLong; Community Discuss; Members Discuss
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration 
to other RIRs



On Mon, 2 Aug 2021, 00:06 Andrew Alston, 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
This is incorrect and in line actually with what I said -

Nop



  1.  Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article11.4 shall 
be submitted to the community for endorsement at the next public policy meeting.

They adopt and submit to the PDWG.


  1.  In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not endorsed, 
the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following its 
non-endorsement; however, any action taken in terms of the policy prior to such 
non-endorsement shall remain valid.

AFRINIC Staff will only enforce or implement the adopted policy if and only if  
"we the people" aka the powerful PDWG, endorse the said policy.

So dude, the wordings are carefully written.

1. Board adopts,  PDWG endorse and finally Staff enforce/implements.

Or

2. Board adopts, PDWG does not endorse, AFRINIC staff CAN NOT enforce/implement.

Makes sense Andrew?



The board can pass a policy - valid till the next policy meeting - and if the 
community doesn’t like it they can reverse it - in the mean time those who feel 
the threat is to great can move in the intervening period.


Lol there is no **mean time dude**

AFRINIC staff won't enforce or implement if "we the people" don't endorse.




The board can - and does - have the power to implement policy valid till the 
next of wg


The board does not have the power unless "we the people" endorse.

Cheers
Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC RUNNING

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Not being a lawyer – I would actually like to know the legal position on this – 
because here is the way I see this.

AfriNIC has a contingent liability on their books of $50m dollars right now – 
and a net worth far below that.
Incurring any further debt – with no guarantee of success in the court case – 
may be classified as reckless trading.

Furthermore – I would like to know if the directors of AfriNIC have complied 
with their statutory requirements under section 162 of the act – which mandates 
that they call a board meeting to discuss appointing a liquidator or 
administrator.  This part of the law – I don’t need a lawyer to interpret – 
because its pretty crystal clear:

162. Duty of directors on insolvency
(1) A director of a company who believes that the company is unable to pay its 
debts as they fall due shall forthwith call a meeting of the Board to consider 
whether the Board should appoint a liquidator or an administrator.
(2) Where a meeting is called under this section, the Board shall consider 
whether to appoint a liquidator or an administrator, or to carry on the 
business of the company.
(3) Where –
(a) a director fails to comply with subsection (1);
(b) at the time of that failure the company was unable to pay its debts as they 
fell due; and
(c) the company is subsequently placed in liquidation, 118 the Court may, on 
the application of the liquidator or of a creditor of the company, make an 
order that the director shall be liable for the whole or any part of any loss 
suffered by creditors of the company as a result of the company continuing to 
trade.


Since AfriNIC – has on calls with its members – openly admitted that they may 
be unable to service debt and that certain creditors have agreed to payment 
deferrals etc – and since  there is absolutely no guarantee that sponsorship is 
going to cover debt – this is very clear – and it will be very interesting to 
see the minutes or the board meeting where this happens.

I am also very curious to see the resolutions regarding budget, since if the 
company is spending outside of budget – that requires a board resolution – 
which has to be published under the transparency rules.  There is no way on 
planet earth that the budget would cover the kinds of legal fees they have been 
racking up – so – how much was the budget expanded – and what risks are being 
taken if spending is being incurred and they lose and still have to pay up with 
the lawyers etc?  And how much money is going to be left by the time they 
finish paying the lawyers even if they win this – would a settlement not be 
cheaper at the end of the day?

Andrew

From: Anthony Ubah 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 12:14 AM
To: Dewole Ajao 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC 
RUNNING

Great idea 👍🏿

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021, 2:05 PM Dewole Ajao 
mailto:dew...@tinitop.com>> wrote:
This is a very good initiative. Can the organizers look at making this more 
like a crowdsourced loan? Is this something that's allowable? That way, AFRINIC 
is given interest free loans and then we can figure out how to repay the loans 
in the future.

For example, I could opt to pay my 2022 and 2023 membership fees in advance via 
this fund (if it can be made official).

Meanwhile, someone here is asking if an initiative can be launched to blackhole 
traffic from all prefixes globally owned by the people trying to force the 
registry to its knees by starving it of funds?

Regards,
Dewole.

On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 6:47 PM Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> 
wrote:
Dear Internet Community,

You are probably aware that AFRINIC, the Regional Internet Registry for Africa, 
is involved in ongoing litigation, where the plaintiff has sought to have 
AFRINIC’s bank accounts frozen. In today’s connected world, it is easy to 
abstract the Internet into simply moving bits and bytes, and forget that there 
are real people that work hard at building, maintaining and providing support 
for the systems that you, and the Internet, need to continue working and 
engaging.

The litigation has made it difficult for AFRINIC to meet its financial 
obligations. Part of these expenses are salaries for the AFRINIC team, who are 
resolutely working through this difficult period.  Whilst we recognise that the 
legal system has to complete its important process, “our colleagues still need 
to survive” during one of the worst pandemics in memory.  As an operational 
entity, that is core to a functioning Internet, AFRINIC still has financial 
obligations that it must meet to its suppliers.

AF-IX, in collaboration with our partners, are therefore embarking on a 
fund-raising exercise to help keep AFRINIC’s core functions and services 
running for the next three months. As a broader community, we are dependent on 
this registry, whose service of allocating and registering Internet Number 
Resources (IPv4, IPv6 and ASN) has enabled communication for the developm

Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC RUNNING

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

John,

I query where queries may actually get answered – and since previous emails to 
the members list have gone unanswered – here is as good a place as any.

The contingent liability stuff – I actually see sense in this – however – that 
neglects the second part of my question – regarding section 162 of the 
companies act – that has nothing to do with contingent liability.  Section 162 
of the companies act says – “Unable to pay debtors” – with no qualifications – 
hence – I want to understand


  1.  If AfriNIC is not bound to section 162 at this point – why not
  2.  If AfriNIC is indeed bound to section 162 – since they are currently 
unable to service debt at this point directly – why is there no resolution as 
required by the companies act in this regard.

Section 162 of the act makes no differentiation that I can see about WHY they 
are unable to service debt – it says – Unable to pay as they fall due – no 
further qualifications.  Hence – if this isn’t applicable – I think this 
community has every right to know why it isn’t – and if it is – then this 
community has every right to know that by what that act says – the company 
should be in administration or in the alternatives the directors – who we 
elected – could become personally liable.

We are a community – this is a bottom up organization – and the community has 
the right to ask questions – however hard those questions may be to answer and 
however much answering those questions may be distasteful to the people who 
have to answer.

Andrew


From: John Curran 
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 2:49 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC 
RUNNING

On 18 Aug 2021, at 3:17 AM, Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:

Not being a lawyer – I would actually like to know the legal position on this – 
because here is the way I see this.

Good Day Andrew –

I am somewhat confused, as you acknowledge you not a lawyer – but seek a legal 
position – and then decide the best way to obtain such an opinion is to post 
legal speculation to the Community Discuss mailing list?   As you are well 
aware, legal opinions are obtained by retaining counsel, so I am at loss in 
your actual intentions in this regard.

AfriNIC has a contingent liability on their books of $50m dollars right now – 
and a net worth far below that.

As it turns out, you might not need a lawyer after all, since your line of 
reasoning is predicated upon the incorrect statement above.

I also am not a lawyer, but can see from the list of legal cases published on 
the AFRINIC website that the order in question is a "Provisional Attachment 
Order" – something that is preliminary in nature and even now remains still to 
be validated by subsequent actions.   Furthermore, validation of such an order 
would appear to protect availability of funds so that they could be available 
to pay for an award if such were to ever be issued, i.e. it does not equate 
with the making of an actual award as you seem to imply in your message.

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers






___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC RUNNING

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

John,

While I agree wholeheartedly that in the course of litigation answers may be 
hard to come by – the clause I refer to in the companies act has little to do 
with the litigation when it stands in isolation – it raises a question about if 
the company cannot pay its debtors – in any circumstance – irrespective of 
litigation.

Now, further to this – yes a company may be able to say little during 
litigation – but – when an entity goes to the community and its members – 
asking for money to fund itself through a hard time, any prudent person who is 
going to donate money – is going to want to know certain basic things


  1.  How will the money they are diverting from other projects be spent
  2.  Are the individuals in control of the entity requesting money behaving in 
a way that is both within the bounds of the law and doing everything reasonable 
to ensure that the amount of money being requested is kept to a minimum – I.E – 
that they aren’t taking actions that would increase the burden on members any 
more than it already is
  3.  Is the board complying with their fiduciary duties in all of their 
actions.

If the answers are not clear – an entity may well decide not to donate a single 
cent – because to do so could well be akin to enabling bad behavior.  So while 
these questions may seem irrelevant normally – in the context of being asked 
for money over and above the fees members pay every year – they are very 
pertinent in my view.  And if the company should indeed be under the control of 
an administrator – that is something we need to know before we start donating 
money.

Andrew


From: John Curran 
Date: Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 16:09
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC 
RUNNING
On 18 Aug 2021, at 8:05 AM, Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

John,

I query where queries may actually get answered – and since previous emails to 
the members list have gone unanswered – here is as good a place as any. ...
We are a community – this is a bottom up organization – and the community has 
the right to ask questions – however hard those questions may be to answer and 
however much answering those questions may be distasteful to the people who 
have to answer.

As a concerned community member, you could have simply asked – “Do we have to 
recognize a contingent liability given the litigation, and are there any 
Section 162 implications to be considered?”   You chose a rather different 
approach of posting legal speculation in the name of "seeking a legal position” 
and hence I replied.  If you want something more definitive, then seeking 
actual legal counsel would likely help clarify far more than speculation here.

The community has every right to know that the organization is being properly 
operated, but it also true that the community vests the routine oversight in 
the elected governance body – as they are both accountable for such oversight 
and have access to legal counsel to inform their course of action.  This 
becomes even more important when in litigation, as organizations need to take 
great care with their communication – even to their members –  to balance the 
need for openness with the obligation to sustain a prudent legal defense.   You 
may not get answers to all your questions in the midst of litigation, but 
that’s an indication of a governing body being true to its job rather than any 
indication to the contrary.

As someone who has had to manage such a difficult balance when defending ARIN 
in litigation, I know firsthand it can be quite challenging to maintain open 
communication with community at the same time. I’d encourage you to continue to 
raise questions that you might have as concerned community member (if indeed 
out of bona fide concern for AFRINIC), but you also should recognize that 
circumspect communications is quite normal when it comes to litigation matters, 
so you might not get the answers you seek – particularly to legal speculation.

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers





___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC RUNNING

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

John

My problem with what you are saying is that it is predicated entirely on trust 
– trust that the board is doing everything they can – trust that the board is 
prudent – trust that the board is sticking to fiduciary duty.  I would argue 
that trust – may be a little hard to come by when it comes to handing over 
money – considering the situation the company now finds itself in under the 
leadership of this board – can considering past years.

Sorry – but as a community member – Questions like these aren’t about feeling 
good and trusting – they are pertinent – valid – questions – that may be 
uncomfortable to answer – but saying that we should just trust – without any 
firm answers – in light of the situation – well – I have to say that personally 
– I find that a little hard to swallow

Andrew


From: John Curran 
Date: Wednesday, 18 August 2021 at 20:26
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] FUNDRAISING & DONATIONS - TO KEEP AFRINIC 
RUNNING
On 18 Aug 2021, at 12:43 PM, Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
... any prudent person who is going to donate money – is going to want to know 
certain basic things


  1.  How will the money they are diverting from other projects be spent
  2.  Are the individuals in control of the entity requesting money behaving in 
a way that is both within the bounds of the law and doing everything reasonable 
to ensure that the amount of money being requested is kept to a minimum – I.E – 
that they aren’t taking actions that would increase the burden on members any 
more than it already is
  3.  Is the board complying with their fiduciary duties in all of their 
actions.

Andrew -

These are quite reasonable questions for anyone donating funds to any cause to 
ask.  Of course, given the nature of the litigation faced by AFRINIC that has 
brought about the situation, some of the answers may be rather obvious; to wit -
a) One would expect the money will be used to defray costs of AFRINIC 
operations per its budget – but now likely with the addition of expenses 
resulting from the litigation.
b) One would expect that AFRINIC is doing everything reasonable and prudent to 
avoid increasing the burden on the members (defending against a $1.8 billion 
USD claim certainly qualifies in that regard)
c) One would expect that the board is indeed complying with their fiduciary 
duties in all of their actions (being litigated generally results in increased 
legal expertise on-hand, and ample attention to such duties.)

I find it quite encouraging that so many organizations have already pondered 
these questions, and (in recognition of the key role AFRINIC plays in the 
development and growth of Internet in Africa) that have come together in a 
fund-raising exercise to help keep AFRINIC running – may they find many of 
similar mind and kindred spirit from around the globe.

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

My question is - what business is it of yours what their motives are. Any 
company or any institution is free to offer promotional services as they see 
fit.

If you have proof that they are not giving what they claim - that would 
constitute offering something not provided. Until then - you can whine all you 
like - but - if they wish to give away services - that is their commercial 
right to do so.

Furthermore - if indeed their application stated that the ip space would be 
used to provide vps / vpn / cloud-based services - then what they charge for 
such is is absolutely no consequence or business of yours.

Maybe instead of attacking other people's business offers and services you 
should find a way to compete if you choose to do so - otherwise it just looks 
like a case of a disgruntled person who can't compete.

At best you get to allege spam - if you prove this is spam and doesn't not have 
the requisite "unsubscribe me and don't send me this stuff again" options.  But 
- it certainly is not coercion - I suggest you look up the meaning of that word 
-

"the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."

Right now all I see is someone who wants to whine against something someone 
else wants to do in what is starting to look like a really petty vengeance 
vendetta - and it's getting very boring

Andrew


Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:36:31 AM
To: Saul Stein 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

Hi Saul,

Thanks for your email and noted as sometimes I get carried away when I read 
some of these dishonest emails from Larus affiliates.

So, while going through https://nsr.help website on the 
landing page, there is information related to freebies where;

The NRS are promising  a free /24 courtesy of Larus Limited.




Larus Limited, an NRS honorable contributor, has donated /24 IP addresses for 
better Internet development. NRS provides an exclusive benefit of /24 IP 
addresses to our network members as a means of improving Internet stability and 
growth. Currently, the market value of these /24 IP addresses is 1500 USD, but 
by joining NRS as a network member, you will get these addresses for free.

Please click this link and get your free /24 IP addresses




And a free one month VPS courtesy of AFRICA ON CLOUD. The same AFRICA ON CLOUD 
that seeks to liquidate AFRINIC.


VPS AFRICA ON CLOUD

One Month Free VPS Africa on Cloud, in partnership with NRS, will be offering a 
discount code for one month free VPS for NRS network members. With this VPS 
offering, your company will be able to host domains and servers. Sign up now 
and experience web-hosting for free through our VPS offer



SO one wonders what the motive for this free services are in light of all the 
ongoing litigation.

Are other resource members falling for the trap which I suspect Larus Limited 
is trying to justify a customer base in the region because why else would Lu 
want to provide anyone with a free /24?

For what purpose?

Cheers,
Noah

I agree that ISOC does a better job on promoting internet freedom and that ISOC 
is widely recognised and respected so to speak compared to Lu's NRS.

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021, 08:59 Saul Stein, 
mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za>> wrote:

Hi Noah,

While sharing emails like this is interesting, I’d suggest leaving the emotion 
and profanity out of the email. It will add to your credibility and stop people 
just saying, there he goes on a rant…



The reality as we all know is that anyone in Africa can become a member of 
AFRINIC and micro membership fess are only $1000 – can you can get a /23, not 
just a /24.



Since the internet is already a global eco system where everyone needs to work 
together, there are already organisations like ISOC etc  to who do promote this 
freedom they speak of.



Education is key, we all know this.







From: Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Wednesday, 08 December 2021 22:28
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying



Folks,



Are most of you still being coerced by the Lu Heng's wannabe RIR the NRS to 
join them.



I mean, reading the bullshit in the below email from one of the NRS 
representatives, a one Fiona Mwangi, clearly shows that Lu Heng is stopping at 
nothing to pretend and fake it that he has legitimate customers in the region 
by dashing out free /24's and some 1 month free VPS access and free Cloud 
services.



Is this how Lu Heng intends to justify that CIL has real end-users in the 
AFRINIC service region because that would be broad day light deceit and 
dishonesty.



Who the heck provides free /24 IPv4 block, free VPS and free Cloud Services.



Talk of bullshit and hamburg.



Cheers,

Noah





From: Fiona Nyawira Mwangi mailto:f.m

Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

See - that right there is the whole point "have you done this" - no - I haven't 
- what the hell difference does that make.

The way I see it - businesses have strategy - they are not compelled to tell 
you what those strategies are - or what their promotional ideas are about - 
it's absolutely none of your business.

Maybe you think you can dictate everyone's strategies and criticize other 
peoples promos at will - and well - free speech and all that - but when you 
start alleging coercion - with no proof and no evidence - you cross the line 
into libel and I call code of conduct.

I am sick to death of your defamatory comments - constant libel - and afrinics 
willful lack of action no matter how much you say that crosses the line into 
innuendo - ad-hominem - libel - and general bad behavior.

Unless you can prove what Lu is doing is illegal - or in violation of the terms 
of his original application - and unless you can prove coercion - I am asking 
AfriNIC to please sanction you on this list for once again clearly violating 
the code of conduct.  Enough is enough - and if your employer won’t act against 
your incessant blather no matter how much damage you do to their reputation in 
the process - at the very least AfriNIC can enforce their own code of conduct

Andrew


Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 11:10:44 AM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Saul Stein ; General Discussions of AFRINIC 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

Hey Andrew,

Your humble opinions are noted.

Firstly, I am not jealous of anything Lu does :-).

Secondly, my concern has nothing to with vengeance :-) because I have never 
quarrelled with Lu and this ain't personal bro.

Thirdly, I question the motives of Larus publicly because I have interacted 
with Lu Heng in person and in private and I pretty have an idea what his real 
motive is and that is to lease and sell IPv4 addresses as a product/service in 
themselves.

I have received emails from Larus is the past promising me IPv4 addresses for a 
good price. Until recently they are not promising free /24 IPv4 addresses for 
use in a whole year on some 3rd party infrastructure of AFRICA ON CLOUD or 
HUAWEI CLOUD as per the promo on nrs.help

Andrew, is this something you have offered as an ISP? As part of a connectivity 
service? Are there other LIR besides Larus offering 1 year freebies out there. 
I mean not even Amazon AWS does that :-)

In fact at some point, Lu in a side discussion attempted to convince me on the 
endless possibilities of monetizing idle IPv4 addresses from universities or 
something like that.

So I am writing from a very informed point of view Kaka Andrew and please 
ignore my boring opinions by sending any email with source address noah@ to the 
bin bro.

Cheers
Noah

On Thu, 9 Dec 2021, 10:30 Andrew Alston, 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
My question is - what business is it of yours what their motives are. Any 
company or any institution is free to offer promotional services as they see 
fit.

If you have proof that they are not giving what they claim - that would 
constitute offering something not provided. Until then - you can whine all you 
like - but - if they wish to give away services - that is their commercial 
right to do so.

Furthermore - if indeed their application stated that the ip space would be 
used to provide vps / vpn / cloud-based services - then what they charge for 
such is is absolutely no consequence or business of yours.

Maybe instead of attacking other people's business offers and services you 
should find a way to compete if you choose to do so - otherwise it just looks 
like a case of a disgruntled person who can't compete.

At best you get to allege spam - if you prove this is spam and doesn't not have 
the requisite "unsubscribe me and don't send me this stuff again" options.  But 
- it certainly is not coercion - I suggest you look up the meaning of that word 
-

"the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."

Right now all I see is someone who wants to whine against something someone 
else wants to do in what is starting to look like a really petty vengeance 
vendetta - and it's getting very boring

Andrew


Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 9:36:31 AM
To: Saul Stein mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za>>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

Hi Saul,

Thanks for your email and noted as sometimes I get carried away when I read 
some of these dishonest emails from Larus affiliates.

So, while going through https://nsr.help website on the 
landing page, there is information related to freebies where;

The NRS are promising  a free /

Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Firstly Noah - nothing you have stated amounts to backing a claim of coercion - 
you have a choice to accept the offer or not. There has been no threat involved 
in you not taking the offer - the claim is therefore still libel and invalid.

Secondly - you keep referring to my time on the board - so - I once again ask 
AfriNIC to please release me from the NDA to which I am bound so that I am free 
to share what really happened during this period.

Noah - if you really want accountability and the truth - you will back the call 
for NDA release - let the truth come out - all of it - let's see what is really 
in the archives - because I am quite happy to share it if granted release - it 
may shock you what you see - and it may not be what you hoped you would see - 
at all

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:33:39 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Saul Stein ; General Discussions of AFRINIC 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

Hey Andrew,

So speaking of evidence in relation to NRS and LARUS Ltd.

  *   I have in the past received emails & calls (blocked) from random NRS 
representatives and affiliates of Larus Ltd.
  *   I know of multiple AFRINIC members here who have received multiple calls 
from NRS representatives affiliated to Larus Ltd.
  *   I have received emails and multiple other AFRINIC resource members have 
received similar emails from NRS representatives affiliated to Larus Ltd  and 
these emails are seated in our inboxes and one such email was shared in the 
original post on this thread.
  *   I know of AFRINIC resource members who have been on zoom calls and 
recorded interesting things :-).
  *   There are emails and many emails to collaborate on a lot of activities 
related to LARUS. People don't just speak about it even though they are all 
disgusted. I on the other hand do and do so openly.  If the TRUTH pisses you 
off, feel free to delete any email with source address n...@..tz

I mean, no AFRINIC Resource Member has ever gone this far in my experience. 
While you have decided to be politically correct by calling the behavior 
PROMOTION, I call it unethical and dishonest business practices in my humble 
opinion as the persistent calls are definitely not PROMOTIONS as you would like 
to twist it.

So, allow me to categorically confirm to the Internet community that there is 
plenty of evidence all over the place, which points to some of the concerns I 
have raised in terms of selling/leasing of IPv4 addresses leave alone the new 
spinning strategy which now includes the offering of free /24 IPv4 block for 
use for an entire year, free VPS for a month and free Cloud services by other 
3rd parties.

In my experience, none of the real serious Cloud Service Providers with serious 
economies of scale like AWS, AZURE or GCS have ever provided such PROMO like 
the ones NRS/Larus are pushing down our throats. I mean, have Amazon or Google 
or Microsoft ever called you constantly for free Cloud services, free /24 
addresses etc.

So my concerns with the NRS and Larus are simple.

1. We have an organization that is promising free IPv4 addresses and free 
Virtual Private Server which you are referring to, as PROMOTION. You really 
must think that folks out here are fools.

2. We have a resource member LARUS Ltd who supports the said organization the 
NRS, which is promising to offer free /24 IPv4 blocks while spreading 
misinformation. I say this because, I know the truth when I see the truth, I 
know lies when I see lies and I am also familiar with BS when I see BS.

3. We also have an organization called the NRS whose representatives are 
constantly calling AFRINIC members asking them to join the NRS with a promise 
of free /24 IPv4 addresses space.

4. We also have an organization called the NRS whose representatives are 
constantly calling AFRINIC members asking them to join the NRS with a promise 
of free 3rd party VPS Servers for 1 month.

5. We also have an organization called the NRS whose representatives are 
constantly calling AFRINIC members asking them to join the NRS with a promise 
of free 3rd party Cloud Services.

VPS services are considered communication services in most jurisdictions. How 
will the Tax man in my country handle such freemium services. You say it's 
PROMOTIONAL, yet even promotional services are taxed. How does Larus Ltd or the 
NRS plan to pay the taxes for such communication services rendered by a 3rd 
party for free to resource members in our country.

Now, Suppose such free VPS servers are used by SPAMMERS, DDOS and other 
Internet abuses etc, who will be liable. LARUS Ltd or NRS based in HongKong or 
AFRICA ON CLOUD based in ZA? Who will be held responsible for the potential 
abuse. This issue is my bloody business as a sane member of the Internet 
community so to speak, Internet security.

Now, let's put all the above aside, a re

Re: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG :-/

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Firstly – generally not a good idea to air such things on a public mailing list 
– that’s just common sense.
Secondly – there is a vast difference between a contradictory view – and 
calling someone a criminal when they have not been found guilty of any crime – 
the former is acceptable – the latter is defamatory.
Thirdly – right or wrong – win or lose – legal battles – can cost a hell of a 
lot of money – and generally are a good idea to avoid them when you can do so, 
lest you end up bankrupt

Andrew



From: Noah 
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:21 PM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG :-/

Dear Community,

So while enjoying the festive holidays, I got served with a seize and desist by 
counsels of you know who? Well email read "Le Heng" who I suppose they meant, 
Lu Heng.

Well ofcourse I resisted and the rational is simple imho.

How come Lu Heng is accusing me of defamation for statements made on AFRINIC 
specific public discussion mailinglists and forum ( 
https://afrinic.net/email/amp):

As we all know, these public forums allow for contradictory discussions 
allowing Lu Heng and Cloud Innovation Ltd/Larus Limited to respond and provide 
their views and arguments.

Cheers,
Noah

- **If you think you are too small to make a difference you haven't spent a 
night with a mosquito**.


-- Forwarded message -
From: Lupi, Isaac mailto:isaac.l...@dentons.co.tz>>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021, 18:56
Subject: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG
To: n...@neo.co.tz 
mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>>,
Cc: Sipemba, Thomas <
Dear Noah,
We are attorneys instructed to represent Mr. Le Heng in relation to your 
defamatory statements to him. Please find attached a self-explanatory demand 
letter for your actioning. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest 
possible convenience, in any event not more that seven (7) days from the date 
of this demand. A hard copy of the letter will be hand delivered to your 
address in due course.

Kind regards,
[cid:image001.png@01D7F377.C34E37E0]

Isaac Lupi
Junior Associate


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG :-/

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

No - I’m suggesting people don’t defame others and break the law by making 
statements that fall into the category of libel or defamation - and if they 
choose to do so - then they accept the consequences.

Calling someone a criminal in a public forum without any charges having been 
filed or proven - is defamatory.  It’s pretty simple really - just - don’t do it

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Boubakar Barry 
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:44:29 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Noah ; General Discussions of AFRINIC 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG :-/

Are you suggesting that people have to shut up because they don't have the 
money to pay attorneys? Total nonsense!

This is not the spirit of this community.

Boubakar


On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:37 PM Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:

Firstly – generally not a good idea to air such things on a public mailing list 
– that’s just common sense.

Secondly – there is a vast difference between a contradictory view – and 
calling someone a criminal when they have not been found guilty of any crime – 
the former is acceptable – the latter is defamatory.

Thirdly – right or wrong – win or lose – legal battles – can cost a hell of a 
lot of money – and generally are a good idea to avoid them when you can do so, 
lest you end up bankrupt



Andrew







From: Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:21 PM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG :-/



Dear Community,



So while enjoying the festive holidays, I got served with a seize and desist by 
counsels of you know who? Well email read "Le Heng" who I suppose they meant, 
Lu Heng.



Well ofcourse I resisted and the rational is simple imho.



How come Lu Heng is accusing me of defamation for statements made on AFRINIC 
specific public discussion mailinglists and forum ( 
https://afrinic.net/email/amp<https://afrinic.net/email/amp>):



As we all know, these public forums allow for contradictory discussions 
allowing Lu Heng and Cloud Innovation Ltd/Larus Limited to respond and provide 
their views and arguments.



Cheers,

Noah



- **If you think you are too small to make a difference you haven't spent a 
night with a mosquito**.





-- Forwarded message -
From: Lupi, Isaac mailto:isaac.l...@dentons.co.tz>>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021, 18:56
Subject: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG
To: n...@neo.co.tz<mailto:n...@neo.co.tz> 
mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>>,
Cc: Sipemba, Thomas <

Dear Noah,

We are attorneys instructed to represent Mr. Le Heng in relation to your 
defamatory statements to him. Please find attached a self-explanatory demand 
letter for your actioning. We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest 
possible convenience, in any event not more that seven (7) days from the date 
of this demand. A hard copy of the letter will be hand delivered to your 
address in due course.



Kind regards,

[X]

Isaac Lupi
Junior Associate




___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG :-/

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Noah - I won’t entertain this thread any further because it’s not worth my time 
- let the legal system play out - and let the courts be the judge of your words 
on these lists.

I’m sure at the very least it will be interesting to observe and to hear your 
explanations from at least 4 sections of emails I’ve just been reading - and 
hey - I will certainly be curious to see if the courts declare that you can 
throw mud at someone without any substantive proof in a public forum… might be 
an interesting precedent if they do

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:13:03 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Boubakar Barry ; General Discussions of AFRINIC 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: DEFAMATION AGAINST MR. LU HENG :-/



On Tue, 4 Jan 2022, 20:39 Andrew Alston, 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
No - I’m suggesting people don’t defame others and break the law by making 
statements that fall into the category of libel or defamation -

You have to prove the defamation claims before a competent court if you were 
not aware.

and if they choose to do so - then they accept the consequences.

What consequences. Has there been a ruling in any competent court that someone 
was actually defamed?

Your escalated and exaggerated statements are misleading.


Calling someone a criminal in a public forum without any charges having been 
filed or proven - is defamatory.  It’s pretty simple really - just - don’t do it

Dont attempt to spread lies Andrew.

Who called who a criminal?

Can you prove your false statement above by providing evidence of the same?

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

[Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

If AfriNIC chooses to remove me from the lists because I refuse to hand over ID 
documents – while they are quite ok with taking my money as an authorized admin 
contact – then in effect, they are no longer providing the service that a full 
RIR providers to other members, based on a requirement that they have no 
mandate to implement.

AfriNIC cannot guarantee the security of information provided.
AfriNIC has no way to verify that the documents submitted are valid
AfriNIC has no mandate from its member base to request for and hold sensitive 
personal information.

To be blunt – I will be giving AfriNIC no such documents – if they choose to 
remove me from the lists and remove my say in this community and in their 
processes as a result – either admit at that point that AfriNIC is no more than 
a book keeper to me – and discount my fees accordingly – or – I will take 
whatever action I deem necessary to deal with what I view as a flagrant, 
unsanctioned move by an organization that is meant to be bottom up but has now 
just lost the plot.

I might point out that – no other RIR has such a requirement.  Nor does the 
IETF.  What they do to solve the issues on their lists is they enforce a code 
of conduct, complete with an appeal process and a sergeant at arms who’s job it 
is to deal with violations of the code of conduct.  They sure as hell don’t ask 
for sensitive documents to prove who people are – that’s insane.

Andrew



From: Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 9:51 PM
To: AFRINIC Communication 
Cc: Community Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group 
mailing list

The form requires one to agree to submit to an unspecified online identity 
verification process. This is not reasonable. The process should be spelled out 
in detail prior to demanding that someone agree to submit to it.

While I favor a reasonable identity verification process, the document linked 
has no relationship to such a thing and is, instead a contract of attainder 
which should not be allowed.

Owen



On Jan 20, 2022, at 10:46, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:

The requirements are expressed in sexist terms. Arguably a violation of the 
very CoC it alleges to bind one to strict adherence.

Perhaps this should be reviewed and amended?

Owen



On Jan 20, 2022, at 04:52, AFRINIC Communication 
mailto:co...@afrinic.net>> wrote:
Dear colleagues,

AFRINIC is now introducing  an ID verification process for our mailing lists. 
This is part of our “Know Your Customer” (KYC) measures that aims at addressing 
any abuses on the AFRINIC community mailing lists and making our online 
community a place where people can better engage and learn from and with their 
peers.

The ID verification will start its application with the Database Working Group 
mailing list and will follow a simple process, before embarking on the other 
AFRINIC community mailing lists. Thank you for your constructive feedback as we 
seek to continue improving the process.

You are kindly invited to start the process by filling out this form: 
https://verification.afrinic.net/

Subscribers to this mailing list have until the 20th of February 2022 to 
complete their ID verification.

We encourage all subscribers to take necessary steps before the above timeframe 
has elapsed.

Kindly note that after the 20th of February 2022, the messages of the 
subscribers who have not completed the KYC check will be automatically rejected.

Regards,
AFRINIC Team

……..

Chers collègues,

AFRINIC introduit un processus de vérification d'identité pour nos listes de 
diffusion. Ceci fait partie de nos mesures "Know Your Customer" (KYC) qui 
visent à traiter tout abus sur les listes de diffusion de la communauté AFRINIC 
et à faire de notre communauté en ligne un lieu où les gens peuvent mieux 
s'engager et apprendre de et avec leurs collègues.

La vérification d'identité commencera par la liste de diffusion du Groupe de 
travail sur les bases de données (DBWG) et suivra un processus simple, avant de 
s'étendre aux autres listes de diffusion de la communauté AFRINIC. Nous vous 
remercions de vos commentaires constructifs, car nous cherchons à continuer à 
améliorer le processus.

Vous êtes cordialement invités à commencer le processus en remplissant ce 
formulaire : 
https://verification.afrinic.net/.
Les abonnés à cette liste de diffusion ont jusqu'au 20 février 2022 pour 
procéder à la vérification de leur identité.

Nous encourageons tous les abonnés à prendre les mesures nécessaires avant que 
le délai ci-dessus ne soit écoulé.

Veuillez noter qu'après le 20 février 2022, les messages des abonnés qui 
n'auront pas effectué la vérification KYC seront automatiquement rejetés.

Cordialement,
L'équipe AFRINIC___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net

Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Here is the thing Mike - do I know if the people in the ietf are sock puppets - 
no - do I care - no - and here is why.

If the code of conduct is written correctly - and properly enforced - it won’t 
make a difference - because consensus is not based on numbers of people - it is 
based on technical quality of objections - a single valid unaddressed objection 
can derail something and 500+1s aren’t gonna help.

If you step out of the code of conduct - the sergeant at arms doesn’t care who 
you are - he cares about what you say and the nature of your input.  Done right 
- the issue of sock puppets won’t be an issue. What will be at issue is - are 
you on topic - are you respectful - are following the note well (the rules that 
form the basis of the code of conduct)


Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Mike Silber 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 11:43:51 AM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group 
mailing list

Andrew

You make some good points. Not sure if the IETF also has an issue with 
sock-puppets, astroturfing and posters using pseudonyms?Maybe you can enlighten 
us?

My personal view is that the key point that is missing [and the *real* issue on 
the mailing list] is not identity verification, but failure to disclose 
affiliation.

Along with the suggestions you made [code of conduct, well enforced] is a 
disclosure requirement [see ICANN’s SOI / statement of interest process for all 
working groups as an example].

I have no issue with comments from users using pseudonyms - provided they have 
a complete SOI setting out their affiliations to avoid the *real* concern with 
such users, namely sock-puppets and astroturfing.

Looking forward to your feedback.

Mike

On 24 Jan 2022, at 09:22, Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:

If AfriNIC chooses to remove me from the lists because I refuse to hand over ID 
documents – while they are quite ok with taking my money as an authorized admin 
contact – then in effect, they are no longer providing the service that a full 
RIR providers to other members, based on a requirement that they have no 
mandate to implement.



AfriNIC cannot guarantee the security of information provided.
AfriNIC has no way to verify that the documents submitted are valid
AfriNIC has no mandate from its member base to request for and hold sensitive 
personal information.



To be blunt – I will be giving AfriNIC no such documents – if they choose to 
remove me from the lists and remove my say in this community and in their 
processes as a result – either admit at that point that AfriNIC is no more than 
a book keeper to me – and discount my fees accordingly – or – I will take 
whatever action I deem necessary to deal with what I view as a flagrant, 
unsanctioned move by an organization that is meant to be bottom up but has now 
just lost the plot.



I might point out that – no other RIR has such a requirement.  Nor does the 
IETF.  What they do to solve the issues on their lists is they enforce a code 
of conduct, complete with an appeal process and a sergeant at arms who’s job it 
is to deal with violations of the code of conduct.  They sure as hell don’t ask 
for sensitive documents to prove who people are – that’s insane.



Andrew







From: Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 9:51 PM
To: AFRINIC Communication mailto:co...@afrinic.net>>
Cc: Community Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group 
mailing list



The form requires one to agree to submit to an unspecified online identity 
verification process. This is not reasonable. The process should be spelled out 
in detail prior to demanding that someone agree to submit to it.



While I favor a reasonable identity verification process, the document linked 
has no relationship to such a thing and is, instead a contract of attainder 
which should not be allowed.



Owen





On Jan 20, 2022, at 10:46, Owen DeLong 
mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote:


The requirements are expressed in sexist terms. Arguably a violation of the 
very CoC it alleges to bind one to strict adherence.



Perhaps this should be reviewed and amended?



Owen





On Jan 20, 2022, at 04:52, AFRINIC Communication 
mailto:co...@afrinic.net>> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

AFRINIC is now introducing  an ID verification process for our mailing lists. 
This is part of our “Know Your Customer” (KYC) measures that aims at addressing 
any abuses on the AFRINIC community mailing lists and making our online 
community a place where people can better engage and learn from and with their 
peers.

The ID verification will start its application with the Database Working Group 
mailing lis

Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

While affiliation is important - I think it’s relatively easy to solve - 
enforce a rule in the code of conduct that demands that posts contain either a 
statement of affiliation in the signature - or the company handle you are 
speaking on behalf of.

If you are speaking in private capacity - the signatures can still be there and 
a clear statement that you are speaking in private capacity.

This means the companies can deal with the offenders if they speak without 
authorization or if the signatures are fake.

Andrew


Get Outlook for iOS


From: Ben Maddison 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 13:09
To: Mike Silber
Cc: Andrew Alston; General Discussions of AFRINIC
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group 
mailing list

Hi Mike,

On 01/24, Mike Silber wrote:
> [...]
> > On 24 Jan 2022, at 11:35, Ben Maddison  wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > If a sender's affiliation is not obvious (From: domain, signature, etc),
> > then the chairs and/or moderators should challenge them to state it.
> > Failure[*] to do so should:
> > A)  be an indication to the community (and particularly for the purposes
> >to considering consensus) that any arguments presented should be
> >viewed with great skepticism; and
> > B)  be a CoC violation, eventually resulting in a ban.
>
> I accept your point - but think it would be better served on
> subscribing to the mailing list [or to retain your posting rights]
> rather than on a challenge basis. One post escapes the challenge and
> then there are claims of favouritism :-)

Yup, that also seems a reasonable approach that I could support.

Assuming such a disclosure would be self asserted(?), that leaves some open
questions:

- How is that information provided to the reader of a message (perhaps
  auto inserting a link to a disclosure webpage at the foot of each
  message?)
- How is the provided information maintained to prevent staleness when,
  e.g. a subscriber changes job, accepts a new consulting gig, gets
  elected to a board somewhere?
- (Most stickily) to what extent is the provided disclosure verified,
  and by whom? This is hard enough in the case of positive assertions,
  and seems near-impossible in the case of omissions.
- Probably others...

Cheers,

Ben
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Let me be clear - the affiliation to me is actually neither hear nor there 
other than on the members list - where I believe that affiliation is absolutely 
critical.

The members list however is limited to members and anyone posting on there 
should be a member and should be speaking as such.

To be frank though as per my previous comments - what should matter on the 
lists is the content of the message not the identity of the sender.  The RIRs 
and the ietf etc - and anywhere that engages in the concept of consensus based 
decision making is meant to look at the content of the messages.

A single objection that is unaddressed (not necessarily resolved - but it has 
to be adequately addressed) is meant to act as a blocker.  Support by a million 
people is not a gauge of consensus - nor is the affiliation of the person 
indicating such.

For some reason though we all seem to have forgotten the principles of 
consensus as best defined in rfc 7282 which can be found at 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282

This has for years been the basis on which technical consensus is defined.

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Anthony Ubah 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 4:32:17 PM
To: Andrew Alston ; Mike Silber 
; Ben Maddison ; JORDI PALET 
MARTINEZ 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group 
mailing list

Hi,

Permit me to barge in into this threesome to add that, while the use of sock 
puppets and crowd mentality should be discouraged in the community, there is 
absolutely nothing wrong with the use of pseudonyms, nor cache affiliations, as 
opinions and affiliations might not always align. Both can also be on a 
collision course.

Now that I have your attention, I'll like to buttress that.

If an organization has not granted rights to an individual to represent, that 
member of staff has absolutely no right to state affiliation, use official 
email domain, or even identify the organization's resources in holding like AS 
number or IP ranges. Doing otherwise is illigal.

Still chiming off the reason above, the call for use of organizational 
email/domain name is absurd. I've enjoyed a good laugh in the background every 
time some community members call for 'void' on comments for "Gmail" users as 
against common sense, on the premise of 'Gmail', and nothing more. This is a 
very narrow-minded call for a dozen reasons;
One, being that, while some members own, or are co-founders of their 
organizations, some spend a bulk of/their entire career in one, while others 
are in constant movent across organizations and regions. Different strokes for 
different folks.
Hence such marginalization is not well-thought-out, and baseless. For 
continuity purposes, members should be allowed to use whatever email address 
they please.
Also switching emails will also put long-standing community members at risk of 
being disenfranchised in voting within the community, as a new email might not 
fulfil the longevity clause introduced lately for eligibility to vote in the 
PDGW voting processes.

That said, I personally have no issues with verifying my own identity (I 
already have), but I shouldn't be compelled to state my affiliation as a 
yardstick to gauge my comments.
According to Afrinic's guidelines on this mailing list, it is for 'anybody who 
has an interest in the activities of AFRINIC working groups', and not for open 
resource holders, or affiliates.


Don't take my word for it. A quick reference to the Afrinic website will 
provide some input on this. 
(https://afrinic.net/email<https://afrinic.net/email>)

An excerpt;

"Most of these mailing lists are open to anybody who has an interest in the 
activities of AFRINIC working groups and provides space for people to share 
information for the benefit of the entire community.
While AFRINIC encourages the use of these lists for a healthy, relevant debate 
and information sharing, we also advise all to ensure that the AFRINIC 
Community Code of Conduct is respected."

In conclusion, the agenda being pushed is against the principles of these 
guidelines and is simply dancing at the edge of a legal cliff.


Best Regards,

Anthony Ubah
Zero Affiliation








On Mon, Jan 24, 2022, 6:19 AM Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> wrote:
While affiliation is important - I think it’s relatively easy to solve - 
enforce a rule in the code of conduct that demands that posts contain either a 
statement of affiliation in the signature - or the company handle you are 
speaking on behalf of.

If you are speaking in private capacity - the signatures can still be there and 
a clear statement that you are speaking in private capacity.

This means the companies can deal with the offenders if they speak without

Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group mailing list

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Sander -

You and I agree on many things - we will differ on this one.

If you wish to show your identity documents to AfriNIC though that is your 
choice - but it is a choice - me? I choose not to show a document which 
contains sensitive information to just anyone.

My birthday - they can have - my name they know well - my identification number 
and/or passport number has nothing to do with them.

I might point out that a lot of people submitted such data to AfriNIC once upon 
a time for dealing with customs and visas for a particular meeting - said 
information ended up let's just say a lot more public than it should have 
been.

Sorry - not happening

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Sander Steffann 
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 8:38:12 PM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ID verification on the Database Working Group 
mailing list

Hi all.

There has been a lot of discussion about what is justified and necessary. I 
personally have no problem with showing my identity card to Afrinic, and have 
done so. It's not like my identity is a secret :)

My contact info is well documented in the RIPE database:

person: Sander Steffann
org: ORG-SSP3-RIPE
address: SJM Steffann Automatisering
address: Tienwoningenweg 46
address: 7312 DN Apeldoorn
address: The Netherlands
phone: +31 6 22660412
e-mail: san...@steffann.nl
notify: san...@steffann.nl
nic-hdl: SJMS1-RIPE
mnt-by: STEFFANN-MNT
created: 2005-10-20T08:23:25Z
last-modified: 2017-03-17T00:02:24Z
source: RIPE

My birthday is the 16th of August, and I like single malt whisky ;)

Cheers,
Sander


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Objection to the notice of AFRINIC AGMM 2022

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Dear Board, Legal Advisors,

I have been informed by several sources (who were not the ones that filed for 
what I heard exists) that AfriNIC was served papers from the courts in the last 
24 hours that ordered them amongst other things to make an announcement by 
close of business - which has now come and gone.

As such - can AfriNIC please either confirm or deny that the AGMM and election 
are subject to an injunction - and can AfriNIC please explain - if this 
information is correct - why they are once again willfully violated a court 
order instructing an announcement by a certain time - that has not gone out - 
despite multiple people who are not party to the filing being aware of said 
filing and informing me of its existence.

I am hoping AfriNIC can state this is simply not true and no such document 
exists - because the alternative would be very worrying (not that the meeting 
is subject to injunction -  but that AfriNIC would defy court orders again)

Thanks

Andrew



From: Rashida Umar via Community-Discuss 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 9:15:47 AM
To: members-disc...@afrinic.net ; 
community-discuss@afrinic.net ; 
le...@afrinic.net ; bo...@afrinic.net 
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Objection to the notice of AFRINIC AGMM 2022

Good day AFRINIC Board and Legal Adviser to the Board,

We are in receipt of an Annual General Members' Meeting (AGMM) invitation. 
While the invitation is non-compliant with well-established requirements in 
several respects, we would like to point the following out to you and to the 
membership.

1. Resource members pointed out the flaw in the election process as published 
but the Board in what seems to be a pattern of disdain for the membership, 
chose not to address the issue. The nominations committee whose lack of 
neutrality is now very clear, also passed the buck back to you the Board for 
being a part of the committee and for approving the proposed process.

2. Resource members have also pointed out the extension of director tenures 
contrary to the mandates that had been given. They have also pointed out a 
deliberate failure to respect the law that casual vacancies are supposed to be 
filled until the next AGMM. Members have also pointed out that a vacant seat 
that should have been put up for election has been deliberately left out to 
give room for another casual filling of vacancy of a longer term. Reasons for 
these are of course best known to the board of directors and legal adviser.

3. After the release of a candidate slate as output of a process that we are 
now aware was used to eliminate certain individuals, resource members have 
requested to have more details of the process by which the candidates for 
election were selected. The Board and the Nominations Committee in a show of 
power abuse has again refused to address this either on the mailing lists or in 
the "report" attached to the defective meeting notices.

4. If the issues with the current nomination process and the seats up for 
election are not addressed, it should be noted that by the date of the next 
valid AGMM (whenever that may be), going by electoral mandate, AFRINIC will 
have only 2 directors that were placed on the board by mandate of the 
membership - Subramanian Moonesamy (Seat 3) and Benjamin Eshun (Seat 8). Every 
other person on the board (with the exception of the board-appointed CEO) would 
have been selected directly by casual vacancy, self-extension of director term, 
or by the nominations committee deliberately limiting the choices available to 
members. This will raise very serious ethical and criminal questions about the 
Board and the legal team that has allowed or endorsed all of this.

While there are several issues that need to be addressed, we believe that by 
quickly addressing the fundamental issues of lawfulness, the election process 
and mandates of the members, the course can still be corrected.

We hereby state categorically that we object to the AGMM proceeding under the 
current circumstances. A manipulated election process should not be allowed to 
stand and the bylaws should also be complied with in the conduct of an AGMM.

Signed,
Rashida
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Except - this govcom - hasn’t read the law.

If indeed you are claiming that the election to a 2-year term was invalid per 
the bylaws - then in effect, you are claiming that the election of said 
director was invalid in entirety.

So let’s go with that for a second, if that’s the case acts of said director 
would remain valid but the election should be nullified.

Then you claim that the election of that seat would be impossible under the 
bylaws - well guess what - you don’t get to make up your own law as to how to 
deal with things the company’s act explicitly deals with.

136. Court may appoint directors
(1) Where -
(a) there are no directors of a company, or the number of directors is less 
than the quorum required for a meeting of the Board; and
(b) it is not possible or practicable to appoint directors in accordance with 
the company’s constitution or under section 140(3),
a shareholder or creditor of the company may apply to the Court to appoint one 
or more persons as directors of the company, and the Court may make an 
appointment if it considers that it is in the interests of the company to do so.
(2) An appointment shall be made on such terms and conditions as the Court 
thinks fit.

Andrew


Get Outlook for iOS

From: DANIEL NANGHAKA 
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2022 10:42:36 PM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique

Dear Community,

I want to thank the community for the comments and suggestions made after the 
Governance Committee published its communique on the recommendations made to 
the AfriNIC Board. GovCom plans to take all the suggestions and comments into 
the next meeting and deliberate on them further. We take note of the 
comments/recommendations made especially by Mr. Folayan and Mr. DeLong.

I would however like to remind the community about the provisions within the 
current By-Laws that lead to the recommendations GovCom made to the Board.  
There only provisions within the current By-Laws that would enable a person to 
be a member of the AfriNIC Board.
Filling of a Casual Vacancy in pursuit of Article 13.14 of the By-Laws
Conduct of Elections with a full tenure of three (3) years in pursuit of 
Article 13.5, Article 13.6, and Article 13.7 of the By-Laws
Either the Board, NomCom, ECom, GovCom, or even Members at an AGMM have the 
power to vary the sequence seats for Directors are elected or the mandated  
3-year tenure of an elected Director
The proposals suggested by Mr. Folayan and Mr. DeLong where the Board conducts 
elections out of sequence for certain seats and for the remainder of the 
unexpired term of the seat is likened to a bi-election mechanism. 
Unfortunately, there are no such provisions for bi-elections within the current 
By-Laws 2020.  And as such, it would be a clear breach of the provisions in the 
current By-Laws.

In regards to the Eastern Africa seat, the Board restored the tenure of the 
elected Director to the mandated 3-year term.  They were no extensions of the 
tenure as the Board did not have the mandate to reduce the tenure to 2-years in 
the first place.

I hope this puts to rest the ongoing debate and clears the way for a successful 
AGMM.

regards,

Daniel
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

We also note that even if this nonsense being stated is true - that resolves 1 
outta 3 missing seats…

There is a long, by meatloaf, it says “2 outta 3 ain’t bad” - well - we ain’t 
even got to that yet - and I would hope to hell that we strive for better 
anyway.  Remember - one rigged election seat is 2 many - never mind 3

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Paul Hjul 
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 1:11:44 AM
To: community-discuss@afrinic.net 
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique

"I hope this puts to rest the ongoing debate and clears the way for a
successful AGMM."
Frankly this is the wrong attitude. The defects with the AGMM are varied and 
your "explanation" misses the simple point. The bylaws envisage that at each 
AGMM there is an election. At that election the seats that become vacant 
through term expiry must be held. Also at that AGMM must board filled vacancies 
be up for election. Also any vacancies that have otherwise arisen must be 
filled. There is no gap in the bylaws or need to depart from this principle. If 
a situation where to arise where there is a lack of directors then Mauritius 
law provides an answer that involves the courts. Following the bylaws does not 
disrupt the sequencing, the ONLY time sequencing would become an issue is if a 
person is given a new three year term when filling a vacancy. Basic reading of 
the bylaws makes it clear that the purpose of the language requiring a 
preservation of sequencing is to ensure that vacancies are filled to run with 
the original term.

We don't know - because Afrinic have not disclosed - what the court has 
ordered. What we do know is that the order will impact on the AGMM. We also 
know that the govcom didn't properly apply it's mind and/or erred in its 
recommendations and advise.

Paul


[Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique
DANIEL NANGHAKA dndannang at gmail.com
Tue May 17 05:42:36 UTC 2022
Previous message: [Community-Discuss] Will the AGMM still be held as scheduled, 
if not can an SGMM or further information and engagement session be held on 
those dates?
Next message: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear Community,

I want to thank the community for the comments and suggestions made after
the Governance Committee published its communique on the recommendations
made to the AfriNIC Board. GovCom plans to take all the suggestions and
comments into the next meeting and deliberate on them further. We take note
of the comments/recommendations made especially by Mr. Folayan and Mr.
DeLong.

I would however like to remind the community about the provisions within
the current By-Laws that lead to the recommendations GovCom made to the
Board. There only provisions within the current By-Laws that would enable
a person to be a member of the AfriNIC Board.
Filling of a Casual Vacancy in pursuit of Article 13.14 of the By-Laws
Conduct of Elections with a full tenure of three (3) years in pursuit of
Article 13.5, Article 13.6, and Article 13.7 of the By-Laws
Either the Board, NomCom, ECom, GovCom, or even Members at an AGMM have the
power to vary the sequence seats for Directors are elected or the mandated
3-year tenure of an elected Director
The proposals suggested by Mr. Folayan and Mr. DeLong where the Board
conducts elections out of sequence for certain seats and for the remainder
of the unexpired term of the seat is likened to a bi-election mechanism.
Unfortunately, there are no such provisions for bi-elections within the
current By-Laws 2020. And as such, it would be a clear breach of the
provisions in the current By-Laws.

In regards to the Eastern Africa seat, the Board restored the tenure of the
elected Director to the mandated 3-year term. They were no extensions of
the tenure as the Board did not have the mandate to reduce the tenure to
2-years in the first place.

I hope this puts to rest the ongoing debate and clears the way for a
successful AGMM.

regards,

Daniel
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

I think – the real problem distilled – is that if the board has the power to 
adjust a term – outside of any provision in the bylaws that limit that power – 
there is nothing codified that stops them extending a seat for 6 years – or 9 
years – or making it perpetual.

Far fetched? Maybe.  With the current board? Who knows.

And yes – we are talking about one seat – but we also mow have a situation 
where 2 other seats are not on the ballot at all – So for central African seat 
– board appoints – then nomcom doesn’t find a candidate the next year – board 
extends appointment – and so it comtinues – it’s a perfect loophole to rig the 
elections such that the board appoints its own board.  All they have to do is 
ensure the nomcom doesn’t find any suitable candidates – and then appoint into 
Infinium. This is the perfect way to capture the organization.

Ideally if there are no suitable candidates – the seat should remain vacant 
until the next election and when the next election happens the term is limited 
to the remaining time in the sequence – this may require a bylaw update – but 
it makes the most sense – because it prevents the board from effectively being 
in entire control of multiple seats and stacking the deck.

I mean as it is – you have 3 seats that should be on the ballot in my view that 
aren’t – that’s a third of the board – 2 more seats that agreed to align with 
the 3 “appointees” – you have a majority and you have organizational capture.  
This cannot be allowed to happen

Andrew


From: Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
Reply to: Owen DeLong 
Date: Tuesday, 17 May 2022 at 10:00
To: Paul Hjul 
Cc: "community-discuss@afrinic.net" 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Comments from GovCom Communique

The problem, Paul, is that the bylaws conflict with themselves.

Under the present circumstances it is literally impossible to follow the strict 
letter of the bylaws because they do, indeed call for three year terms without 
allowing for the election of partial year terms (unnumbered paragraph after 
13.5 and before 13.6). However, they also insist on the maintenance of the 
sequentiality of terms (13.6). However, they do not (as the gov com has 
erroneously suggested) allow for simply leaving the seat vacant. Indeed, 13.1 
requires the board to call a meeting of members for the purpose of appointing 
directors where vacancies occur as a result of any of the following:
i. Term expiration
ii. Removal or resignation under Article 14
iii. Disqualification of a director under Article 13.10
iv. Death
v. Filling of a casual vacancy in terms of article 13.14

However, as you point out, they also clearly call for elections and do not 
allow the board to appoint directors for arbitrary terms.

Finally, we have section 13.14 which allows the board to fill casual vacancies 
as a result of:

14.1(ii) Resignation
14.1(iii) Removal by 2/3rds vote of other directors
14.1(iv) Ceases to be a director pursuant to section 139 of the companies act

Summarizing section 139 
(https://www.mcci.org/media/35749/the-companies-act-2001.pdf)
 it covers:
(a) Resignation
(b) Removal from office by board act or legal process
(c) Disqualification by law (Section 133, under 18, over 70 (if a public 
company)
(d) undischarged bankrupt
(e) legally prohibited from being a director
(f) not a natural person
(g) adjudged to be of unsound mind
(h) no longer qualifies under the company’s constitution)

So, as you can see, the Gov Com has chosen to follow all the bylaws except 
section 13.1. I’ve suggested a way forward that is a minor technical violation 
of the unnumbered paragraph between sections 13.5 and 13.6 in order to allow 
full compliance with 13.1 and 13.6. Further, virtually every other organization 
that has a staggered term structure as described here operates in the manner I 
have suggested with regard to electing persons to the remainder of terms to 
preserve the sequence of elections thereafter.

This problem is compounded when the nominating committee goes about eliminating 
valid candidates and paring the selection down to just one candidate for a 
seat, thus effectively appointing that candidate rather than having an actual 
election. Even with just two candidates to choose from for a given office, this 
is a very limited choice and it allows the nominating committee and the board 
to stack the deck in the electoral process.

The injunction does not stop the AGMM, it only stops the election of the board.

Owen






On May 17, 2022, at 01:11 , Paul Hjul 
mailto:hjul.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:

"I hope this puts to rest the ongoing debate and clears the way for a
successful AGMM."
Frankly this is the wrong attitude. The defects with the AGMM are varied and 
your "explanation" misses the simple point. The bylaws envisage that at each 
AGMM there is an election. At that election the seats that become vacant 
through term expiry must be held. Also at that AGMM must 

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Exactly Ish,

You beat me to it - all this says is that a corporation may be represented by 
proxy appointment - it does not create a situation for single person 
representation - and this is a very far stretch at best - and at worst nothing 
more than semantics designed to confuse.

Are we so disrespected that we are thought of as stupid that we will buy this 
nonsense?

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS


From: Ish Sookun 
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2022 21:18
To: AFRINIC Communication 
Cc: Andrew Alston ; le...@afrinic.net 
; members-disc...@afrinic.net ; 
AFRINIC Community Discuss 
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL 
MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

Dear AFRINIC Comms,

On 31 May 2022, at 22:00, AFRINIC Communication 
mailto:co...@afrinic.net>> wrote:

Article 12.14(9) provides, inter-alia as follows - "Corporations may act by 
representative. A corporate body, which is a Member, may appoint a 
representative to attend an Annual General Members’ Meeting on its behalf in 
the same manner as that in which it could appoint a proxy.”.

The above does not specify that a corporate body cannot be represented by more 
than one person in the AGMM.

Regards,

———

Ish Sookun

Systems Architect @ La Sentinelle Ltd
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Why is there a restriction on multiple members from the same organization 
attending online - as stated we understand the physical restrictions - but the 
online restriction does not make sense.

If you look closely at the clauses you specify - it refers to a corporate body 
- a corporate body is typically made of multiple individuals. Yes they may 
choose to be represented by one - but the corporate body itself may also be 
multiple individuals

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: AFRINIC Communication 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 8:58:19 PM
To: Ish Sookun 
Cc: AFRINIC Community Discuss ; 
le...@afrinic.net ; members-disc...@afrinic.net 

Subject: Re: [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL 
MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)


Dear Mr. Sookun,

We refer to your query with regards to corporations being represented by 
representative.

As you are aware, AFRINIC's Resource Members are legal entities (i.e. 
companies) which can only act through their respective representative(s).

In regard to article 12.14(9), you will note that same reads as follows:

"Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Article, where a proposal is made 
by a Resource Member, the Board shall have discretion as to whether notice of 
such proposal should be given to members. Corporations may act by 
representative. A corporate body, which is a Member, may appoint "A" 
representative to attend an Annual General Members’ Meeting on its behalf in 
the same manner as that in which it could appoint a proxy."

In this respect, whilst a resource-member may have multiple contacts, it is 
allowed to select a representative of its choice to attend the AFRINIC's AGMM.

As for your questions - Do the Bylaws prevent in any way, for a Resource Member 
to be represented by ONE “group” of two persons? The two persons being ONE 
representative of the Resource Member? Kindly be informed that these questions 
do not arise for the simple reason that article 12.14(9) is clear and explicit. 
The bylaws is a legal document and is also an agreement between AFRINIC and its 
members, as well as an agreement amongst the members themselves. As such, we 
cannot unfortunately add or import words not forming part of the bylaws, and 
the bylaws must be applied as is, unless and until the provision in question is 
amended.

Therefore, where a company has delegated for example two persons to attend the 
AGMM, only one of them will be admitted to the main AGMM Room (subject to 
covid-19 sanitary restriction - i.e. 50 pax) and the other person will again, 
subject to covid-19 sanitary restriction, be admitted to the secondary room 
where the latter will be able to follow the proceedings as an 'observer only.

You will appreciate that AFRINIC has a member-base of approximately 2,000 
resource-members and it would be wholly unfair to allow any one resource-member 
to be represented by a group of persons thus depriving other eligible 
resource-members from also ensuring attendance and effectively participate at 
an AGMM.

We hope you have been enlightened by the above. In case you still need further 
clarification, please do inform us and we shall arrange a meeting with our 
Legal Officer who will assist accordingly.

Regards,

AFRINIC Communications


On 1 Jun 2022, at 19:18, Ish Sookun 
mailto:ish.soo...@lasentinelle.mu>> wrote:

Dear AFRINIC Legal,


On 31 May 2022, at 16:23, le...@afrinic.net wrote:

5.1  You may access the AGMM 2022 online platform via the following url 
https://ais.conf.meetecho.com/conference/?group=agmm.
 You will receive a special token by Wednesday, 01 June 2022, that will enable 
you to log onto the online platform and participate in the AGMM 2022. You are 
further informed that since a corporation may be represented by ONE 
representative at the AGMM, once a representative of a Resource Member has 
accessed the AGMM platform, no-other will be able to access the same using the 
same token. All other interested persons may, however, follow the AGMM 
proceedings through AFRINIC’s youtube channel.

I read Article 12.14(9) of the AFRINIC Bylaws. It says that corporations may 
act by representative. In the above you say ONE representative. Nowhere in the 
Bylaws or the Companies Act 2001 of Mauritius, the word “representative” is 
defined as being ONE “person”.

Can you please help me understand this? Do the Bylaws prevent in any way, for a 
Resource Member to be represented by ONE “group” of two persons? The two 
persons being ONE representative of the Resource Member?

Regards,

———

Ish Sookun

Systems Architect @ La Sentinelle Ltd
___
Members-Discuss mailing list
members-disc...@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

There have been no bylaw updates as concerns this - I checked.  This is an 
entirely arbitrary requirement and as per the CEOs email - was decided by the 
logistics team - which drastically exceeds the authority of a logistics team 
when it comes into conflict with the rights of members

What AfriNIC is effectively doing is denying members the right - among other 
things - to have legal council present and interacting - it’s a very very 
dangerous move and I will be quite curious to see how the court reacts to such 
an arbitrary stipulation specified just days before a meeting - considering 
long standing precedent and the fact that no such restrictions exist in either 
the bylaws or section 115 of the companies act

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS


From: Ish Sookun 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 21:27
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: AFRINIC Communication ; AFRINIC Community Discuss 
; le...@afrinic.net ; 
members-disc...@afrinic.net 
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL 
MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

Hi Andrew, AFRINIC Comms & Legal,

On 1 Jun 2022, at 22:14, Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

Why is there a restriction on multiple members from the same organization 
attending online - as stated we understand the physical restrictions - but the 
online restriction does not make sense.


Yes, indeed.

Besides I do not think this restriction, on online attendance, was applied in 
previous meetings. There hasn’t been any amendment to that particular article 
of the Bylaws between Kampala and now, unless I am wrong. Therefore, why the 
restriction on online attendance, now? Asking one member of the organisation to 
join the meeting platform and the other to watch on YouTube.

Regards,

———

Ish Sookun

Systems Architect @ La Sentinelle Ltd
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

That section of the bylaws - is drawn directly from the companies act and deals 
explicitly with proxies - it does not deal with multiple admin contacts.

In the context of AfriNIC because if the way it is structured - members are 
effectively shareholders. I’d you read section 115 of the companies act - 
anyone who is entitled to receive the notice of meeting is entitled to 
participate fully  in the meeting - and that clause does not allow for company 
constitution override

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 9:22:49 PM
To: AFRINIC Communication 
Cc: AFRINIC Community Discuss ; AfriNIC Discuss 
; le...@afrinic.net 
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION 
AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)



On Wed, 1 Jun 2022, 22:06 AFRINIC Communication, 
mailto:co...@afrinic.net>> wrote:

A corporate body, which is a Member, may appoint "A" representative to attend 
an Annual General Members’ Meeting on its behalf in the same manner as that in 
which it could appoint a proxy."

Part of the above sentence reads ...

appoint "A" representative

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Actually the notice of meeting is sent to every admin contact for the 
organization.

And the clause in section 115 refers to individuals - not corporations.

Anyway - my guess is that once again the board will ignore this and once again 
we will have to let a court decide. I just wish I was wrong and they would take 
the simple way out - postpone the meeting - send a proper notice of meeting and 
withdraw these bizarre stipulations - but I suspect instead they will take the 
route of forcing this into court and wasting still more of members money - in 
top of the $600k they have already wasted by forcing members into a position 
where litigation was the only option

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Noah 
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 10:17:54 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: AFRINIC Communication ; AFRINIC Community Discuss 
; AfriNIC Discuss ; 
le...@afrinic.net 
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION 
AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)



On Wed, 1 Jun 2022, 22:46 Andrew Alston, 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
anyone who is entitled to receive the notice of meeting is entitled to 
participate fully  in the meeting

The notice is sent to each corporation. Generally corporations tend to be 
reprented by their admin contacts in our context.

I suppose the "A" representive is meant to mean that a corporation gets 
represention by all means in principle.

Noah
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Binding Arbitration

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

My issue here is – I am not convinced that you can use arbitration to step 
around the law.

When the companies act has rules – you cannot use arbitration to violate the 
companies act.
When the bylaws create rules – and the company violates those rules – 
arbitration to allow them to violate the rules – also doesn’t make sense – 
because it creates a situation where they can violate the rules for one company 
based on arbitration outcomes and then leave themselves to sitting in 
arbitration for everyone else.

Arbitration works when it’s a dispute involving something specific to an entity 
– it does not work when one of the entities is violating the companies act or 
the bylaws that affect all members.

As for the question that was asked about if AfriNIC has ever initiated 
proceedings – no – not that I know of – but – what they have done is created 
the situations where members have felt no option but to take legal action.  
Members have a duty to protect themselves – and when AfriNIC’s actions 
represent a threat to the interests of those members, and potentially in 
conflict with the law or the bylaws – and AfriNIC point blank refuses to budge 
– then they create an adversarial and litigious environment.

A classic example of this is the AGMM tomorrow – There are formal objections to 
the AGMM – the companies act says one thing, the bylaws say something, and 
AfriNIC has a very simple option.  Postpone the meeting, issue a rectified 
notice of meeting, and issue the resolutions in that notice of meeting that are 
required to be there.  The meeting could then be held as an online only meeting 
in 4 to 6 weeks – and there would be no objections anymore – and all it would 
require is a slight delay that would not in reality hurt anything.  Instead – 
AfriNIC seems hell bent on pushing through and performing some truly amazing 
legal gymnastics to make text say things it doesn’t – and thereby escalating an 
already tense situation rather than choosing to act in the best interests of 
the company and the members, avoid potential litigation and just accept the 
delay.  Why are they choosing this route?  No one really knows – because it 
certainly would not actually affect anything in a material sense if they were 
to rectify the issues at hand – but it seems that egos are winning out.

I also point out that it was AfriNIC’s legal council – who on video – in front 
of an AGMM in Uganda – said to the members “If you don’t like it – you have an 
option, the courts” – effectively he said “Don’t like it – sue us” – well – 
members are now obliging – what did they expect?

Andrew


From: Paul Hjul 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 1:07 PM
To: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Binding Arbitration


"Has anyone considered binding arbitration as a means to resolve these various

controversies?  It seems to me that that might be a more cost efficient,

and almost certainly a more time-efficient manner of resolving a number of

outstanding disputes that various parties have with AFRINIC at present.



Andrew is right, of course, to lament the high costs of traditional legal 
actions.

But in which instances has AFRINIC initiated those costly legal actions?"



Um I've argued for Afrinic to commit to arbitration since the inception of the 
issues. Not sure when you joined team ADR.

Complaining that you are being sued after you committed a tort is a bit rich. 
You are sounding like the whining American executives who are unhappy that Ford 
was slapped with an injunction in Germany after they refused to enter into 
FRAND licensing negotiations knowing full well that refusing to do so 
represents intending to infringe on patents.

The party who acts wrongfully and who fails to remedy is responsible for the 
litigation that follows.

Afrinic's board knowingly, maliciously and for an alterior motive moved to 
cancel a members membership. They did so without following any of the rules of 
natural justice.

That is the inescapable and dispositive fact of this fiasco. The existence in 
the RSA of a dispute resolution clause is the best way to guard the 
organization moving forward and its absence means that even if the board were 
to grow up and stop delinquency they wouldn't be able to ensure that every 
dispute is now in arbitration. But that is hardly a reason not to do things 
correctly moving forward. Of course much of the litigation would become moot if 
the board would simply acknowledge the patently unlawful conduct it engaged in.
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Binding Arbitration

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Let me be very clear,

The only objective I have is to see the board following the law - and being 
held accountable when they are not.   The consequences of what happens when the 
board is allowed to make their own rules outside of the companies act and the 
bylaws are pretty apparent, and they aren't pretty.

I do not believe that asking them to issue a proper notice of meeting is 
unreasonable.  I do not believe that asking them to put resolutions on the 
notice of meeting as is required by the bylaws and the companies act is 
unreasonable.

To be clear - the companies act - Section 115, clause 1.b states that the agmm 
must be held not later than 6 months after the balance sheet date of the 
company.  This was temporarily extended due to covid, but that was retracted.  
However, that being said, the company has until the end of June to hold the 
meeting - ample time to issue a new notice of meeting.

Considering that members can only realistically act at an annual general member 
meeting, again, I cannot in my mind see a way postponing the meeting will hurt 
anything, and will still meet the confines of the law.

I question however any argument that says that it is ok to step outside of the 
companies act and the bylaws when there are clear options to stay within these 
things is ok.  If we cannot hold ourselves to the rules that bind business in 
the country of domicile - we have bigger problems than the postponement of the 
annual general members meeting.

Thanks

Andrew


From: Ronald F. Guilmette 
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2022 10:46 PM
Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Binding Arbitration

In message mailto:am7pr03mb64518aa49ef7dc537b929d9cee...@am7pr03mb6451.eurprd03.prod.%0boutlook.com>>,
 Andrew Alston 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:

>As for the question that was asked about if AfriNIC has ever initiated
>proceedings - no - not that I know of - but - what they have done is created
>the situations where members have felt no option but to take legal action.

Such as in the case of Netstyle.co.il, which elected to bring suit?

(It is my hope and belief that most folks on this list will already know my
personal opinions on THAT bit of litigation. Briiefly, it is my personal
opinion that that litigation had, and has, no sound basis in either fact or
law. Is is however, like the several other still pending legal actions,
creating costs for AFRINIC and its members... pointlessly in my opinion.)

>Members have a duty to protect themselves - and when AfriNIC's actions
>represent a threat to the interests of those members, and potentially in
>conflict with the law or the bylaws - and AfriNIC point blank refuses to budge
>- then they create an adversarial and litigious environment.

It is, I think, an arguable point as regards to which parties could be fairly
said to have "created an adversarial and litigious environment."

>A classic example of this is the AGMM tomorrow - There are formal objections to
>the AGMM - the companies act says one thing, the bylaws say something, and
>AfriNIC has a very simple option. Postpone the meeting, issue a rectified
>notice of meeting, and issue the resolutions in that notice of meeting that are
>required to be there. The meeting could then be held as an online only meeting
>in 4 to 6 weeks - and there would be no objections anymore - and all it would
>require is a slight delay that would not in reality hurt anything.

Let me confess a few things before making my last point in response.

First, for those not already aware, I am neither an African nor even an
AFRINIC member. Also, I confess that for quite some time now my attentions
have been elsewhere, and I have not followed in detail the often volumous
traffic on this or any other AFRINIC mailing list to which the public has
access. On the basis of these multiple facts, I should probably just shut up
and butt out entirely, since these are all matters for the membership to
resolve, but as I hope we all recognize, what goes on in Africa doesn't
stay in Africa. It affects the whole planet.

Now, that all having been said, and returning to the suggestion that the
upcoming meeting be delayed... well, I personally have no opinion on that
other than to offer the observation that maybe Andrew's assertion that a
delay "would not in reality hurt anything" may be wrong.

In my own country (USA) on the rather special date of January 6th, 2021,
some insurrectionist elements of my own government are now known to have
been scheming to delay the final phase of the selection of our new president,
and NOT for any noble, well-founded, or good reason. Their hope was to
delay the proceedings for a mere 10 days, during which, they believed, they
could further their sordid and nefarious scheme to effectively take over
the U.S. government by extra-legal means. Thankfully, that did not happen.
If it had, then there may well have been a second civil war my this country.
(And I can assure all her

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

No Ronald,


They do however contain billions in dark money, massive amounts of shadowy 
lobby groups, the occasional invasion of a building, maybe a few people baying 
to hang someone, 846 (so far) arrests, a years worth of hearings need I go 
on?


Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Ronald F. Guilmette 
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2022 2:01:18 AM
To: AFRINIC Community Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION 
AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

In message ,
Owen DeLong  wrote:

>So you suggest what alternative? In the face of the various gross misdeeds by 
>the
>AFRINIC board, including their tampering in the election to avoid a free and 
>fair
>election...

:-)
Thanks for the laugh Owen! I needed that today. And I confess that your
unique genius for comedy never ceases to astonish me.

Where I come from "free and fair elections" normally do not involve stealthy
backroom schemes to rig the outcome by buying votes.


Regards,
rfg

___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

In regards to the below thread - let me point out that at the agmm - the entire 
board was on stage.

When questions were asked of the board - they were deferred to the individual 
best positioned to answer them (or best positioned to avoid answering them - 
take your pick)

Effectively - the board had 9 "representatives" on the stage - and the chairs 
of finco and auditco etc dealt with different aspects.

A similar situation can and should exist with members - a member may have 
different people who are separately qualified to ask questions about specific 
knowledge domains. This is especially important considering that some questions 
may require clarification after being asked - as an example please see the 
clarifications requested of me by the chair of I believe the auditco in the 
meeting. This can someone require specialized knowledge to provide those 
clarifications - hence an organization needing multiple representatives in the 
same way the board needs multiple people on stage.

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1:28:19 AM
To: Sylvain Baya 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL 
GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

Since section 12.12 of the bylaws is silent on the issue of whether a proxy is 
required to be a natural person, then yes, in theory, a body could be a valid 
proxy. Still any such body would only be entitled to one vote on any matter for 
which said proxy was appointed, so it would still require that proxy to 
effectively speak with one voice regardless of the number of natural persons 
comprising said proxy.

Q1: A RM can appoint one proxy, regardless of the number of natural persons 
comprising said proxy.

Q2: No, a RM cannot have a group of proxies, but they could appoint an entity 
consisting of multiple natural persons as a proxy as I read the bylaws.

Q3: One proxy. There is no apparent limit to the number of natural persons who 
may comprise the entity appointed as proxy, however.

Q4: Section 12.12 of the bylaws governs the appointment of proxies. It does not 
preclude the appointment of an entity consisting of multiple natural persons as 
a proxy.

Owen


On Jun 7, 2022, at 12:51 , Sylvain Baya 
mailto:absc...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Dear PDWG,
Hope this email finds you in good health!

Please see my comments below, inline...

Le mardi 7 juin 2022, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> a 
écrit :
IMHO, the term “a representative” could refer to either a natural person 
representing a corporation, or a group of natural persons as a representative 
body.



Hi Owen,
Thanks for your email, brother!
Please add the comparison effect, before jumping
 to a conclusion :-)




Given that in such ambiguities, it is generally taken to be the most liberal 
possible interpretation within reason, I would say the a group of natural 
persons as a representative body is valid in this context.



Again! i couldn't agree more, due to the presence
of the other part of that very sentence; you seem
to neglect :-/

...as the comparison is obvious, let me ask you to
answer, first, few simple questions:

Q1| How many proxies a resource member (RM)
can designate?

Q2| Is it possible that RM has *a* group of proxies?

Q3| if the answer of Q2| is yes, then; what is the
max number of proxies for such a group of?

Q4| i understand it's not sufficient to a resource
member to being represented by only one person,
then; which provision in both the AfriNIC's Bylaws
and/or the MU's Company Act (2001) allow it to
be more than only one's personal expectation?


Hope this clarifies something!

Shalom,
--sb.





Owen


On Jun 2, 2022, at 11:09 , Sylvain Baya 
mailto:absc...@gmail.com>> wrote:

{remove members-disc...@afrinic.net}
Dear AfriNIC's Community,

Hope this email finds you in good health!

Thanks to find my comments below, inline...

Le jeudi 2 juin 2022, Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>> a écrit :


On Jun 1, 2022, at 12:25 , Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> wrote:



On Wed, 1 Jun 2022, 22:51 Ish Sookun, 
mailto:ish.soo...@lasentinelle.mu>> wrote:
Hi Noah,

On 1 Jun 2022, at 22:22, Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>> wrote:

Part of the above sentence reads ...

appoint "A" representative….

I understand the “A” and the second word is “representative”. A representative 
can be a person or a group of persons.

Hi Ish

English is not my lingo as Swahili was my first language and primary language 
but I tend to think that the meaning changes depending on how words are 
contracted together.

1. A representative of
2. Representatives of
3. Representative
4. Representatives...

Do all the above have the same meaning.


It depends on the context, but certainly there is overlap of meaning amongst 
those terms.

[...]

In such a case of ambiguity, especiall

Re: [Community-Discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Consider it like this -

In a corporate - there is a thing called a delegation of authority.  Multiple 
individuals may have delegated authority to do a single task. For example, if 
you look at the board resolution that sets up the AfriNIC reserve fund - there 
is delegation of authority to access that account granted to the chair of the 
board, the vice chair of the board and the ceo. It requires a minimum of two of 
those individuals to sign - but does not require all three.

The admin contact of an organization has a defacto delegation of authority from 
the companies they speak for to vote and to speak at an agmm on behalf of that 
entity.  There may be multiple individuals holding such delegation of authority 
in a specific corporate entity.

An individual person may also have delegation of authority as an admin contact 
for multiple organizations.

A good example of this would be that an individual could for example own 
multiple distinct companies - and would be entitled to interact on behalf of 
all of those entities.  Imagine Elon Musk showed up and Space-X and Tesla were 
both AfriNIC members - he would be able to speak on behalf of both.

Andrew


Get Outlook for iOS

From: Mirriam via Community-Discuss 
Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 11:17:34 PM
To: absc...@gmail.com ; Owen DeLong ; 
General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] ATTENDANCE & PARTICIPATION AT THE ANNUAL 
GENERAL MEMBERS’ MEETING (AGMM)

Hello Sylvain,

You raise very interesting perspectives on this dialogue of what "a 
representative" means.

While following the AGMM online, I noted that Andrew from Liquid was speaking 
on behalf of so many other entities.

My assumption is that he was the single representative of all those 
organisations or the proxy appointed as a representative of the said 
organisations.

Would it be safe to assert that in that case, Andrew was a representative of 
all those Liquid group of companies?

Mirriam

Sent from Yahoo Mail on 
Android

On Tue, Jun 7, 2022 at 10:51 PM, Sylvain Baya
 wrote:
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Congratulations to the new Chair & Vice-Chair of AFRINIC

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Hi Owen,

Well - it depends.  If a non-quorate meeting was called and then adjourned for 
24 hours and reconvened they would gain quorum under the bylaws.

The question becomes - and this is where I am uncertain and believe it is open 
to debate - can a meeting be called knowing full well that quorum cannot be 
there and then adjourned for 24 hours to gain quorum - thereby deliberately 
exploiting a loophole.  It is one thing to call a meeting thinking you would 
have quorum - not getting it - adjourning for 24 hours and then gaining quorum 
after giving notice to the absent directors.  It is another thing entirely to 
call a meeting knowing full well quorum could not be met and having no one to 
give notice to.

Either way at bare minimum a meeting would have had to be called - adjourned 24 
hours - and then reconvened to be quorate.  This would have to be minuted.  The 
board has been silent on if this process was followed despite members asking 
the question.  Once again we face a situation where this organization is not 
answering legitimate questions from its members - and to me that is even more 
troublesome than the quorum issue.

Furthermore - last I checked the board of directors page online had updated the 
chair and vice chair but was still showing the old directors listed as current 
- why has that not been updated to show the vacant seats accordingly

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

From: Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 12:54:52 AM
To: Ish Sookun 
Cc: AFRINIC Community Discuss ; AfriNIC Discuss 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Congratulations to the new Chair & Vice-Chair 
of AFRINIC

How did the board hold a meeting given that they cannot field a quorum after 
the AGMM?

Owen


> On Jun 7, 2022, at 00:15 , Ish Sookun  wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Eshun & Dr. Omari,
>
> I congratulate both of you for your appointment as Chairman and Vice-Chairman 
> of AFRINIC respectively.
> I wish you all the best and hope you will be able to navigate the 
> organisation through the rough waters.
>
> I also thank SM for his time, guidance and leadership.
>
> Regards,
>
> ———
>
> Ish Sookun
>
> Systems Architect @ La Sentinelle Ltd
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Congratulations to the new Chair & Vice-Chair of AFRINIC

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

On the contrary Noah,

No one is “throwing shade” – we are asking the board to confirm that the 
process was correctly followed. Which, considering the events of the AGMM and 
the blatant violations of the bylaws that occurred there – is a very fair 
question to ask.

And – if you dispute there were blatant violations of the bylaws in the context 
of the AGMM – Please, let me know – I will quote you chapter and verse as to 
exactly where they happened.

Andrew


From: Noah 
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Mark Elkins 
Cc: AFRINIC Community Discuss ; AfriNIC Discuss 
; Owen DeLong 
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Congratulations to the new 
Chair & Vice-Chair of AFRINIC

Hi Mark

This is exactly what I was educating someone on a separate thread on members 
list but it seems we are a point where throwing shades at the board at any 
chance some folks get, is a thing now.

Noah
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022, 13:16 Mark Elkins, 
mailto:m...@posix.co.za>> wrote:

Just so that people are clear... Page 30 of the AfriNIC Bylaws image cut 
from the PDF.

[cid:part1.994D76BD.619C6FA4@posix.co.za]

Thus if there are at least three Board Members, if one leaves the room - the 
last two can call a meeting, see that there is no quorum, send notice to the 
third, adjourn the meeting and then after at least 24 hours, conduct a meeting 
in quorum assuming then that there are at least three Board members. If this 
happens - it must be minuted.
On 6/8/22 6:36 AM, Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss wrote:
Hi Owen,

Well - it depends.  If a non-quorate meeting was called and then adjourned for 
24 hours and reconvened they would gain quorum under the bylaws.

The question becomes - and this is where I am uncertain and believe it is open 
to debate - can a meeting be called knowing full well that quorum cannot be 
there and then adjourned for 24 hours to gain quorum - thereby deliberately 
exploiting a loophole.  It is one thing to call a meeting thinking you would 
have quorum - not getting it - adjourning for 24 hours and then gaining quorum 
after giving notice to the absent directors.  It is another thing entirely to 
call a meeting knowing full well quorum could not be met and having no one to 
give notice to.

Either way at bare minimum a meeting would have had to be called - adjourned 24 
hours - and then reconvened to be quorate.  This would have to be minuted.  The 
board has been silent on if this process was followed despite members asking 
the question.  Once again we face a situation where this organization is not 
answering legitimate questions from its members - and to me that is even more 
troublesome than the quorum issue.

Furthermore - last I checked the board of directors page online had updated the 
chair and vice chair but was still showing the old directors listed as current 
- why has that not been updated to show the vacant seats accordingly

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

From: Owen DeLong via Community-Discuss 
<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 12:54:52 AM
To: Ish Sookun <mailto:ish.soo...@lasentinelle.mu>
Cc: AFRINIC Community Discuss 
<mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>; AfriNIC 
Discuss <mailto:members-disc...@afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Congratulations to the new Chair & Vice-Chair 
of AFRINIC

How did the board hold a meeting given that they cannot field a quorum after 
the AGMM?

Owen


> On Jun 7, 2022, at 00:15 , Ish Sookun 
> <mailto:ish.soo...@lasentinelle.mu> wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. Eshun & Dr. Omari,
>
> I congratulate both of you for your appointment as Chairman and Vice-Chairman 
> of AFRINIC respectively.
> I wish you all the best and hope you will be able to navigate the 
> organisation through the rough waters.
>
> I also thank SM for his time, guidance and leadership.
>
> Regards,
>
> ———
>
> Ish Sookun
>
> Systems Architect @ La Sentinelle Ltd
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>


___

Community-Discuss mailing list

Community-Discuss@afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss@afrinic.net>

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

Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Congratulations to the new Chair & Vice-Chair of AFRINIC

[Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss]

Sorry, but I must disagree that it is something else.

As I stated to someone – there was a time when people stepped outside of the 
bylaws that on minor issues it would be overlooked – but the time has come and 
gone when there can be no more affordances granted – because the boards actions 
have placed the members in a position where now, every action will be 
questioned to be sure it is in line with the bylaws to the letter.

I point out that the website itself was updated with the new chair and vice 
chair – yet it also still shows the other directors as current – they aren’t. 
Despite an update having been done to that page that updates the chair and vice 
chair.

I point out that the extension of term for the vice chair was disputed – and 
the board minutes clearly show that it was disputed – and also clearly indicate 
that there were conflicting legal opinions about if it was even legal to do 
what the board did in extending that term – and now – despite that – the board 
went and made him vice chair against a resolution that is, at best, legally 
dubious since it is an open question if he is still legally a director – and I 
suspect that will be heard in court once the issue of the election challenges 
is heard properly.

So yes – people are asking questions – and not without cause – questions that 
every member has a right to – and probably should – be asking at every stage.

Andrew


From: Noah 
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1:57 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: Mark Elkins ; AFRINIC Community Discuss 
; AfriNIC Discuss ; 
Owen DeLong 
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Congratulations to the new 
Chair & Vice-Chair of AFRINIC

Andrew,
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022, 13:48 Andrew Alston, 
mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
On the contrary Noah,

No one is “throwing shade” – we are asking the board to confirm that the 
process was correctly followed. Which, considering the events of the AGMM and 
the blatant violations of the bylaws that occurred there – is a very fair 
question to ask.

I am certain the CEO and the board have read your fair questions and without 
doubt they shall respond, however, the claims of lack of quorum by some is what 
I was referring to in respect to the bylaws which I attempted to explain and 
Mark Elkins did us a service to paste the said section for the doubtful 
thomas's among us.

And – if you dispute there were blatant violations of the bylaws in the context 
of the AGMM – Please, let me know – I will quote you chapter and verse as to 
exactly where they happened.

This is something else, so let us not mix things up.

Noah

Andrew


From: Noah mailto:n...@neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Mark Elkins mailto:m...@posix.co.za>>
Cc: AFRINIC Community Discuss 
mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>>; AfriNIC 
Discuss mailto:members-disc...@afrinic.net>>; Owen 
DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>>
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Congratulations to the new 
Chair & Vice-Chair of AFRINIC

Hi Mark

This is exactly what I was educating someone on a separate thread on members 
list but it seems we are a point where throwing shades at the board at any 
chance some folks get, is a thing now.

Noah
On Wed, 8 Jun 2022, 13:16 Mark Elkins, 
mailto:m...@posix.co.za>> wrote:

Just so that people are clear... Page 30 of the AfriNIC Bylaws image cut 
from the PDF.



Thus if there are at least three Board Members, if one leaves the room - the 
last two can call a meeting, see that there is no quorum, send notice to the 
third, adjourn the meeting and then after at least 24 hours, conduct a meeting 
in quorum assuming then that there are at least three Board members. If this 
happens - it must be minuted.
On 6/8/22 6:36 AM, Andrew Alston via Community-Discuss wrote:
Hi Owen,

Well - it depends.  If a non-quorate meeting was called and then adjourned for 
24 hours and reconvened they would gain quorum under the bylaws.

The question becomes - and this is where I am uncertain and believe it is open 
to debate - can a meeting be called knowing full well that quorum cannot be 
there and then adjourned for 24 hours to gain quorum - thereby deliberately 
exploiting a loophole.  It is one thing to call a meeting thinking you would 
have quorum - not getting it - adjourning for 24 hours and then gaining quorum 
after giving notice to the absent directors.  It is another thing entirely to 
call a meeting knowing full well quorum could not be met and having no one to 
give notice to.

Either way at bare minimum a meeting would have had to be called - adjourned 24 
hours - and then reconvened to be quorate.  This would have to be minuted.  The 
board has been silent on if this process was followed despite members asking 
the question.  Once again we face a situation where this organization is not 
answering legitimate questions from its members - and to me that is even more 
troublesome than th