I am also waiting for an acknowledgement of this request – I requested the same 
thing from the members list and via the board – and there is deafening silence.

It concerns me that AFRINIC seems to believe that they can make claims about 
court orders – but despite the fact that by law these rules are a matter of 
public record – AFRINIC is choosing not to disclose copies of the full order to 
this list – and in essence forcing members to go and seek the actual order from 
the courts itself.

I cannot understand the resistance to publish this – and while I cannot provide 
any proof of this – the only logical reasons I can see in my mind to NOT 
publish the full order, would be a.) the order doesn’t actually exist or b.) 
there is something in that order the board would prefer the members not to see. 
 I find it hard to comprehend that it could be (a) because that would be 
blatant misrepresentation to the member base that by the virtue of what AFRINIC 
claims in the court order now have legal standing and hence – that leaves (b) – 
however – you cannot ACT on a court order that you do not disclose – because it 
is entirely unreasonable for AFRINIC to come and make a claim like – we have a 
court order that allows us to hold an AGMM – yet refuse to produce the actual 
court order – duly signed and stamped by the court.

The fact that this question has now been asked by multiple individuals – 
including emails sent to the board – the members list – this list – and from 
multiple people who are in good standing – and as of yet has had ZERO response 
– is entirely intolerable.

In addition – I figured I would go and see what was in the minutes about this – 
but – the board has not published ANY meeting minutes for any meeting post 
September 2018 – despite the fact that minutes are meant to be ratified at the 
subsequent board meeting, as a result – the membership base is once again kept 
in the dark.

Nor have I had ANYTHING back on the fact that the board made an explicit 
statement to the community that when that case was coming up on the roll they 
would inform the community – which did not happen – be it by oversight or 
deliberate omission – this is a categoric violation of the bottom up approach 
to which AFRINIC committed itself under ICP2.

I also need to raise the fact that despite NUMEROUS members raising the issue 
of the “none of the above” modification to election guidelines on both members 
and community list – that is yet another question asked months ago that the 
board has chosen to categorically ignore.  Yet again – this was a top down 
decision – again – in violation of ICP2 and without any member consultation or 
agreement.

The simple fact is – the transparency of this organisation is non-existent – 
and right now – until that court order is produced for the member base – the 
organisation cannot expect its members to go on “faith” – because it is faith 
that they have done nothing to earn.

Andrew

From: Dabu Sifiso <[email protected]>
Sent: 20 February 2019 19:22
To: Sander Steffann <[email protected]>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] AFRINIC 2019 AGMM quorum

Hi,

I cannot find any reply or even ban acknowledgement of this request.

Is there any legal issues preventing comments from the board or Afrinic staff 
on the status of that ruling?

/Dabu

17:47, 7 February 2019, Sander Steffann 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>:

Hi,
 I am pleased to announce that the Supreme Court of Mauritius has made an 
order, under case reference SC/COM/MOT/01411/2018

I can't seem to find that case on their website. Can you please post the full 
order?

Thanks!
Sander

_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Reply via email to