Are you suggesting that IF some party or parties were somehow able to take control of five (or more) board seats that said party or parties might,
in theory, take some decisions or actions that might be contrary to the best interests of the membership as a whole? You wouldn't need 5 board seats if the members and other directors are complacent. You would be able to achieve general control with as few as 3 directors provided one is the CEO or chair. Having control of the nom com or gov com would also come in handy. This is because of board quorum and the fact that vacancies can sit idle until you manage to bring in your "own man". In fact with the approach taken by the gov com and board at present - and presumably the cause of the injunction (which details have not yet been disclosed) simply having command over the nom com is the necessary step to get to control. It is also not really an "in theory" hypothesis that if the board were to be under the control as envisaged that the interests of the members would be harmed and that the board would act against member interests. The only component of the hypothesis is whether critical control of the board is achieved. It is also the case that the threat of shenanigans can paralyze things so having control over three directors would be devastating as would a reasonable apprehension - for which a sound foundation has been laid against the nom com this year - of suitable candidates being intentionally excluded/ "Who would possibly do such a nefarious thing" There are quite a few line ups: 1) an organization or individual who has a lot of skin in the game and whose assets are in jeopardy due to Afrinic shenanigans, as a defensive measure having concluded that Afrinic will not course correct or behave lawfully 2) persons who have affiliations with the dismissed former employee of the company who was engaged in nefarious activity and have an interest in obfuscation and the like 3) individuals who "consult" with cable operators and other businesses that require IP resources and who've managed to build themselves quite a nifty gatekeeper business (there is actually a big overlap between 2 and 3, and when properly considered it is probable that any contender to be of type 1 was willing and able to keep up with demands of persons in 3 that a continued racket could be had) 4) individuals (even if initially entering the industry well intentioned) who have built themselves little fiefdoms as the CEO or like of an organization in the Africa Internet space who have found themselves on the wrong side of events and are removed for malfeasance. An old boys club of people who've been in the mix for several years is an organizational risk in these sorts of situations. While the existence of a nom com should strengthen the board the practice risk is that a circuit exists making the insiders choose the next insiders. This is especially a problem where a nom com process sees same body choosing to only put forward the designated insider 5) individuals and organizations who are opposed to Afrinic being a member driven organization who have one of many political agendas - I am pretty sure that when Afrinic was considering serving as a beacon against political interference in access to the public Internet we saw an increase in a desire to grab control of the organization or at the very least to gut it of its ability to function. but here really is the crux of the problem, a gander through the mailing list will reveal that there have historically been concerns when an organization is the employer of board members and there are candidates to take up additional seats which could lead to one company being seen to have to strong an ability to influence. IIRC this resulted in a good candidate for the board stepping aside in the interests of the organization that arise from avoiding a perception of overconcentration. Despite the fact that there is nothing precluding many South Africans on the board (especially if permanently resident elsewhere) it wouldn't feel proper if the organization was felt to be under the control of South Africans. There is a similar irrational (and probably illegal) set of restrictions on Mauritius candidates (it is partly irrational because the CEO is by virtue of employment a resident of Mauritius). So many of the possible non nafarious reasons and ways a tipping point of control in related party hands are simply avoided because of a sense of ethics, duty and belief in the members best interests. On the other hand nafarious and idiotic reasons continue to abound. Assuming any combination of the 5 identified groups are at any given time being nefarious the likelihood of one stopping the other from succeeding is one of those areas where systemic strength comes into play. Of course if interests align amongst some groups then they'd be quite ready to make a play and undermine the interests of the members. Ultimately though if less than 200 members participate in the affairs of the organization and the majority of those have adopted a pessemistic view of Afrinic then the shenanigans risk increases. In message <39D45032-ACDE-4846-A2BC-7C93CECA83CC at liquidtelecom.com <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>>, Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>> wrote: >*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 * Point of clarification, Andrew, if you please: Are you suggesting that IF some party or parties were somehow able to take control of five (or more) board seats that said party or parties might, in theory, take some decisions or actions that might be contrary to the best interests of the membership as a whole? And if so, who would possibly ever want to do such a nefarious thing? Regards, rfg
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
