Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Alan Barrett]

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:48, Andrew Alston  
> wrote:
> The problem here and this is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what 
> has always been communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members 
> as shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been stated both 
> on the floor at AGMM’s and in emails.  I would need to find specific 
> examples, but I believe such has even been stated by council.

I have always tried to be clear on the difference.  What the Act calls 
“Members” or “Shareholders” corresponds, in my view, to what AFRINIC calls 
“Registered Members”.

We do treat Resource Members a lot like shareholders, in many ways that are 
listed in the Bylaws (mostly in section 7.6), but in cases where the Act gives 
some rights or responsibilities to shareholders or members, and the Bylaws are 
silent on the issue, then I believe that only Registered Members are affected 
by the Act.

> Now – this may or may not hold legal ground – I am no lawyer and don’t claim 
> to be – but perhaps this opens a wider question – do we consider members to 
> have the same rights as shareholders under the act.  If so, we should 
> probably enshrine this in the bylaws – if not – we should probably have 
> something that clearly delineates the differences.

I am also not a lawyer.  I worry about unintended consequences of explicitly 
giving Resource Members all the powers of shareholders, and would want 
carefully considered legal advice before we do anything like that.

> Again – if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as shareholders – 
> the proxy limitation becomes invalid under that interpretation.

I see some support for removing the proxy limitation.

> If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws – it creates 
> another problem – there are various parts of the companies that are very 
> explicit in the rights that are assigned *only* to shareholders – and at that 
> point we have to be consistent in our approach.  We can’t pick and choose 
> here.

My belief is that we have been consistent: the rights assigned by the Act to 
shareholders apply only to Registered Members, unless the Bylaws also assign 
those rights to other categories of members.

Alan Barrett





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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Andrew Alston]

Hi Alan,

Writing wearing my member hat….

The problem here and this is where it gets murky, by precedent and by what has 
always been communicated to the members, we effectively treat the members as 
shareholders. There are numerous instances where this has been stated both on 
the floor at AGMM’s and in emails.  I would need to find specific examples, but 
I believe such has even been stated by council.

Now – this may or may not hold legal ground – I am no lawyer and don’t claim to 
be – but perhaps this opens a wider question – do we consider members to have 
the same rights as shareholders under the act.  If so, we should probably 
enshrine this in the bylaws – if not – we should probably have something that 
clearly delineates the differences.

Again – if members are considered in terms of the bylaws as shareholders – the 
proxy limitation becomes invalid under that interpretation.

If we do not consider them as such in terms of the bylaws – it creates another 
problem – there are various parts of the companies that are very explicit in 
the rights that are assigned *only* to shareholders – and at that point we have 
to be consistent in our approach.  We can’t pick and choose here.

Just my thoughts…

Andrew


On 29/09/2016, 21:29, "Alan Barrett"  wrote:


> On 29 Sep 2016, at 22:09, Andrew Alston  
wrote:
> 
> I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand 
up to legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this.
> 
> The fifth schedule of the companies act – clause 6, makes specific 
references to proxies – and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as a 
proxy.

What the Mauritius Companies Act refers to as Members corresponds to what 
the AFRINIC Bylaws refer to as Registered Members.

> It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states that 
the entirety of clause 6 applies “not withstanding any provision in any 
constitution adopted by the company.”  The only exception to this is clause 6 
(d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the actual proxy.
> 
> My reading of this – and again, I would like to hear informed legal 
opinion, is that limitations on the proxy instruments that could impact on 
anyone appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of line with the 
companies act – and hence the limitation in our bylaws is illegal and cannot be 
enforced – since it is overridden by the act – which reigns supreme.
> 
> Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above?

I am not a lawyer, but I would assume that the Companies Act may override 
the Bylaws on matters relating to Directors and Registered Members, but not on 
matters relating to Resource Members (which is an AFRINIC construct that is not 
reflected in the Companies Act).

Alan Barrett



___
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] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Bennie Joubert]

+1 NO new restrictions on proxies and removing any restriction that 
currently do exist


-1 For adding any new restrictions


I paid my membership fees like the rest and feel my vote counts if it is 
online or via proxy.  Just my 2 cents.


Kind regards.

--

Bennie Joubert
Tel: +27.87060
Fax: +27.862167377
Cell: +27.769485741
Email: bennie.joub...@jsdaav.com

[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Andrew Alston]

I am also far from convinced that the limitation on proxies would stand up to 
legal scrutiny and I would like to hear informed legal opinion on this.

The fifth schedule of the companies act – clause 6, makes specific references 
to proxies – and is explicit that any member may appoint anyone as a proxy.

It also has a very specific clause in the companies act that states that the 
entirety of clause 6 applies “not withstanding any provision in any 
constitution adopted by the company.”  The only exception to this is clause 6 
(d)(v) which makes reference to the format of the actual proxy.

My reading of this – and again, I would like to hear informed legal opinion, is 
that limitations on the proxy instruments that could impact on anyone 
appointing a proxy of their choice would be out of line with the companies act 
– and hence the limitation in our bylaws is illegal and cannot be enforced – 
since it is overridden by the act – which reigns supreme.

Can any lawyers on this list please comment on the above?

Thanks

Andrew



On 29/09/2016, 20:38, "Alan Barrett"  wrote:


> On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Badru Ntege  wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston 
 wrote:
>> 
>> Correct – I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am 
wrong) is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for 
example.

My main point was that the proxy limit does not apply to determining quorum 
or to voting on resolutions; only to voting in elections.  However, I was also 
under the mistaken impression that the limit came from the election guidelines, 
whereas it actually comes from the bylaws.

> If we thought it important enough to enshrine in the bye laws we should 
extend it to all voting processes.

If we have proxy limits at all, then I think that they should be applied 
equally to all relevant situations (determining quorum, and any vote my 
Members).

However, I am not convinced that there should be any limit.

Alan Barrett


___
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] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Alan Barrett]

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 21:22, Badru Ntege  wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Correct – I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) 
>> is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for 
>> example.

My main point was that the proxy limit does not apply to determining quorum or 
to voting on resolutions; only to voting in elections.  However, I was also 
under the mistaken impression that the limit came from the election guidelines, 
whereas it actually comes from the bylaws.

> If we thought it important enough to enshrine in the bye laws we should 
> extend it to all voting processes.

If we have proxy limits at all, then I think that they should be applied 
equally to all relevant situations (determining quorum, and any vote my 
Members).

However, I am not convinced that there should be any limit.

Alan Barrett


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Badru Ntege]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 5:30 PM, Andrew Alston  
> wrote:
> 
> Correct – I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) 
> is that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for 
> example.
> 

If we thought it important enough to enshrine in the bye laws we should extend 
it to all voting processes. 



> It is specifically limited to ELECTION voting – any election.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> On 29/09/2016, 19:03, "ALAIN AINA"  wrote:
> 
>Hello,
>> On Sep 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Alan Barrett  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers 
>>> of proxies one can use.  The suggestion was not to eliminate. 
>>> 
>>> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. 
>>> 
>>> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.  
>>> 
>>> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. 
>>> 
>>> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity.
>> 
>> For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of 
>> proxies per person.  I don’t think that limit applies to anything else.
> 
> 
>Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies to 
> all elections.
> 
>===
>12.12 Proxies
> 
>(viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the
>Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election
>
> 
> 
>Hope this helps
> 
>—Alain
> 
>> 
>> I agree that we should discuss it.  Let’s hear whether people think there 
>> should be limits, and if so, what the limits should be.
>> 
>> Alan Barrett
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 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] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

[Andrew Alston]

At the moment it’s on the FTTH network.

Work is going on to do the FTTH network in Zambia next, and we’re also working 
on doing this on the new LTE network in Zambia.  Once we get those two right, 
we will look further at the mobile stuff.

There are other challenges there so we’re taking it one step at a time and 
ensuring we get it right the first time – our one imperative in all of these 
rollouts is – do NOT impact customer service.

We will get there though ☺

Andrew


From: Mazama Gnalou 
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Date: Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 20:06
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Cc: Loganaden Velvindron , afnog 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

DId you use IPV6 in fixe and mobile network?
GNALOU Mazama-esso
skype: mgnalou

00228 90 39 82 83

00228 22 34 38 82


2016-09-29 13:50 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston 
>:
In this particular case they are Huawei ONT’s.  So not exactly a regular CPE 
(ONT’s are typically vendor locked to the deployed OLTs)

Thanks

Andrew



On 29/09/2016, 16:29, "Loganaden Velvindron" 
> wrote:

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston
> 
wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross posting 
to
> both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in
> what follows.
>
>
>
> Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe.  There 
are
> now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> native IPv6 – and they are actively using it.  This was the next phase 
after
> our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>
>
>
> We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that
> particular location – and even more exciting, more than 70% of that 
traffic
> was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering – it did NOT come via long
> distance international links from Europe.
>
>
>
> On the AFRINIC side – we followed the policy and registered each and every
> static customer assignment in the whois database – it held up well as we
> sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> update – my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a 
long
> update to process in one go.
>
>
>
> So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready – we can now 
proudly
> say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>
>
>
> I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the 
next 2
> or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up.  Let’s wait and see
> as the updates happen.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
Hi Andrew,

Congratulations, what is the particular model for the CPE ?




___
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] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Badru Ntege]

We had a similar discussion on another list somewhere and someone  related the 
mass proxie thing to ballot stuffing which we commonly see in our elections in 
the region

Even trust has guidelines

@ mark thanks for alluding to the elephant in the room.

If we want an outcome that inspires trust which does not exist right now let's 
consider limitations on proxies.

Sent from my iPhone

On 29 Sep 2016, at 3:52 PM, Andrew Alston 
> wrote:

Because proxies are enshrined in the companies act for one thing.

Secondly, what is your definition of abuse? Someone was trusted by a lot of 
people and used them to vote a way that you didn't like? That's not abuse - 
that's members who had faith in someone and decided to vote in a particular way.

Calling that abuse is laughable in the extreme - and it shows lack of 
willingness to accept the will of the majority vote.

Attempting to limit and change the rules to ensure that things go a particular 
way is no better than incumbent politicians attempting to change constitutions 
to hold onto power, or pushing for voting reforms to disenfranchise a 
particular group of people because you don't like the way they may vote.

Let's respect the democratic process here

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS


From: Omo Oaiya >
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 5:31:53 PM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

-1

There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the 
principle in question.   These votes are meant to be a representation of public 
interest not shareholder or group interest so we should care more about ethics 
and the moral responsibility of having involved voters.

As we are starting to record more online votes than onsite, I don't see why we 
can't consider limiting to online voting if not physically present.  We can use 
opportunity to improve on member engagement.

We may need to improve integrity and ease of use of the voting system in the 
process but small price to pay for a more representative and involved community.

-Omo

On 28 September 2016 at 20:16, Jackson Muthili 
> wrote:
+1

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston
> wrote:
> +1 Mark,
>
> I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in 
> business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other 
> such things hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act 
> I’ve ever read.
>
> It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a proxy 
> to someone.
>
> A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person 
> who gave it to them.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins" 
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
> > achieve a representative outcome.  However this opens another
> > question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
> >
> > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member
> > views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
> > through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members who
> > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.
>
> If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
> person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
> 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
> them, my issue is with them, no one else.
>
> Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
> certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
> another year.
>
> If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
> them. I really don't see the problem.
>
> > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
> > start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao" 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
> >> percentage (of something or the other)?
> >>
> >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
> >> were to double in a year or two.
> >>
> >> Dewole.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
>  On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
>  

Re: [Community-Discuss] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

[Mazama Gnalou]

DId you use IPV6 in fixe and mobile network?

GNALOU Mazama-esso

skype: mgnalou

00228 90 39 82 83

00228 22 34 38 82



2016-09-29 13:50 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston :

> In this particular case they are Huawei ONT’s.  So not exactly a regular
> CPE (ONT’s are typically vendor locked to the deployed OLTs)
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 29/09/2016, 16:29, "Loganaden Velvindron"  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston
>  wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> >
> >
> > So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross
> posting to
> > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both
> forums in
> > what follows.
> >
> >
> >
> > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe.
> There are
> > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active,
> live,
> > native IPv6 – and they are actively using it.  This was the next
> phase after
> > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
> >
> >
> >
> > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night
> in that
> > particular location – and even more exciting, more than 70% of that
> traffic
> > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering – it did NOT come via
> long
> > distance international links from Europe.
> >
> >
> >
> > On the AFRINIC side – we followed the policy and registered each and
> every
> > static customer assignment in the whois database – it held up well
> as we
> > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a
> single
> > update – my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell
> of a long
> > update to process in one go.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready – we can now
> proudly
> > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
> >
> >
> >
> > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in
> the next 2
> > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up.  Let’s wait
> and see
> > as the updates happen.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > Andrew
> >
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Congratulations, what is the particular model for the CPE ?
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Andrew Alston]

Correct – I think what Alan meant here (and he can correct me if I am wrong) is 
that the limitation does not apply to special resolution voting for example.

It is specifically limited to ELECTION voting – any election.

Thanks

Andrew



On 29/09/2016, 19:03, "ALAIN AINA"  wrote:

Hello,
> On Sep 29, 2016, at 5:16 PM, Alan Barrett  
wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege  wrote:
>> 
>> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e 
numbers of proxies one can use.  The suggestion was not to eliminate. 
>> 
>> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. 
>> 
>> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.  
>> 
>> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. 
>> 
>> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity.
> 
> For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of 
proxies per person.  I don’t think that limit applies to anything else.


Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies to 
all elections.

===
12.12 Proxies

(viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the
Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election



Hope this helps

—Alain

> 
> I agree that we should discuss it.  Let’s hear whether people think there 
should be limits, and if so, what the limits should be.
> 
> Alan Barrett
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Alan Barrett]

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 20:03, ALAIN AINA  wrote:
>> For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of 
>> proxies per person.  I don’t think that limit applies to anything else.
> 
> Bylaws is very clear on this. The limit of 5 proxies per person applies to 
> all elections.
> 
> ===
> 12.12 Proxies
> 
> (viii) No member entitled to vote during an election held by the
> Company shall carry more than five (5) proxies during the said election
> 

Thank you for the reference.

Alan Barrett


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Omo Oaiya]

-1

There is history of abuse of proxies in AFRINIC so it is not simply the
principle in question.   These votes are meant to be a representation of
public interest not shareholder or group interest so we should care more
about ethics and the moral responsibility of having involved voters.

As we are starting to record more online votes than onsite, I don't see why
we can't consider limiting to online voting if not physically present.  We
can use opportunity to improve on member engagement.

We may need to improve integrity and ease of use of the voting system in
the process but small price to pay for a more representative and involved
community.

-Omo

On 28 September 2016 at 20:16, Jackson Muthili 
wrote:

> +1
>
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston
>  wrote:
> > +1 Mark,
> >
> > I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in
> business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other
> such things hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company
> act I’ve ever read.
> >
> > It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a
> proxy to someone.
> >
> > A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the
> person who gave it to them.
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins"  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> > > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way
> to
> > > achieve a representative outcome.  However this opens another
> > > question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
> > >
> > > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged
> member
> > > views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
> > > through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members
> who
> > > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.
> >
> > If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
> > person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not
> be
> > 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
> > them, my issue is with them, no one else.
> >
> > Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
> > certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
> > another year.
> >
> > If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it
> to
> > them. I really don't see the problem.
> >
> > > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need
> to
> > > start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao"  wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
> > >> percentage (of something or the other)?
> > >>
> > >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
> > >> were to double in a year or two.
> > >>
> > >> Dewole.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
> >  On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
> >   wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > > On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alan,
> > >> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
> > >> small, but I think 10% is too large.
> > > Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
> > > attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
> > > and can use something like the lowest or average number of
> > > members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
> > > quorum requirement.
> >  Sure, I can get those numbers.
> > >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
> > >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
> > >>> members who attended the meetings.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2013201420152016 E-Votes58  59
> 49  183 On-Site Votes   45
> > >>> 66  77  62 TOTAL103 125 126 245
> > >>>
> > >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
> > >>> 30 resource members in the future.
> > >>>
> > >>> Alan ___
> > >>> Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> > >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ___ Community-Discuss
> > >> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> > >> 

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Matters Arising - Further clarification

[Noah]

On 28 Sep 2016 13:50, "abel ELITCHA"  wrote:
>
> Hi Chair,
>
> "do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i
believe has happened in the recent past.?"
> I think this question from Noah remains unanswered. Am I right?
>

Whatever the excuse will be this time, but the this level of disregard is
uncalled for.

If i may, does the AFRINIC board require a spokes person so that we membera
can suggest electing one who can respond to members queries.?

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

Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

[Loganaden Velvindron]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Andrew Alston
 wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross posting to
> both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in
> what follows.
>
>
>
> Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe.  There are
> now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> native IPv6 – and they are actively using it.  This was the next phase after
> our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>
>
>
> We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that
> particular location – and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic
> was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering – it did NOT come via long
> distance international links from Europe.
>
>
>
> On the AFRINIC side – we followed the policy and registered each and every
> static customer assignment in the whois database – it held up well as we
> sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> update – my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long
> update to process in one go.
>
>
>
> So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready – we can now proudly
> say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>
>
>
> I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2
> or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up.  Let’s wait and see
> as the updates happen.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>

Hi Andrew,

Congratulations, what is the particular model for the CPE ?

___
afnog mailing list
https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Mark Elkins]

Badru, I know you are involved in a (pretty successful) company. I
presume there is a Board and shareholders? What limits does your
organisation have on shareholders and proxies? Does your organisation
impose any limits?

I'm actually not aware of any company apart from AFRINIC that imposes
any limitations on shareholders regarding proxies. i.e. - It is AFRINIC
that is doing something unusual by having limitations.

ps. I was the cause of the limitations on proxies per candidate being
introduced within AFRINIC - a consequence of the last Cairo meeting. I
arrived with about 20 proxies.

On 29/09/2016 09:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers 
> of proxies one can use.  The suggestion was not to eliminate. 
> 
> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. 
> 
> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.  
> 
> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. 
> 
> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. 
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On 28 Sep 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrew Alston  
>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 Mark,
>>
>> I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in 
>> business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other 
>> such things hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company 
>> act I’ve ever read.
>>
>> It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a proxy 
>> to someone.
>>
>> A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person 
>> who gave it to them. 
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins"  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
>>> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
>>> achieve a representative outcome.  However this opens another
>>> question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
>>>
>>> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member
>>> views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
>>> through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members who
>>> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.
>>
>>If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
>>person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
>>100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
>>them, my issue is with them, no one else.
>>
>>Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
>>certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
>>another year.
>>
>>If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
>>them. I really don't see the problem.
>>
>>> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
>>> start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao"  wrote:

 Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
 percentage (of something or the other)?

 Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
 were to double in a year or two.

 Dewole.


 On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Alan,
 The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
 small, but I think 10% is too large.
>>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
>>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
>>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of
>>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
>>> quorum requirement.
>> Sure, I can get those numbers.
> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
> members who attended the meetings.
>
> 2013201420152016 E-Votes585949183 
> On-Site Votes45
> 667762 TOTAL  103125126245
>
> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
> 30 resource members in the future.
>
> Alan ___ 
> 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] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Alan Barrett]

> On 29 Sep 2016, at 11:20, Badru Ntege  wrote:
> 
> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers 
> of proxies one can use.  The suggestion was not to eliminate. 
> 
> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. 
> 
> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.  
> 
> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. 
> 
> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity.

For Board elections, the election guidelines specify a maximum number of 
proxies per person.  I don’t think that limit applies to anything else.

I agree that we should discuss it.  Let’s hear whether people think there 
should be limits, and if so, what the limits should be.

Alan Barrett


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Andrew Alston]

+1

Such restrictions do not impact of the proxy holder they impact on the member 
and the members right to choose who they trust and who they wish to invest with 
the power to speak for and vote for them.

What right do we have to dictate such to the members? Why should a member not 
be free to choose who the trust, when they trust them, and what power they 
choose to entrust to whoever they choose.

Or are we saying we don't have enough faith in our members to make their own 
choices and we need to act as nannies? I call that an insult to the 
intelligence of our members.

Andrew

Get Outlook for iOS

_
From: Jackson Muthili >
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 10:44
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
>


On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Badru Ntege 
> wrote:
> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers 
> of proxies one can use. The suggestion was not to eliminate.
>
> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified.
>
> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.
>
> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too.
>
> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity.

Nothing to discuss. A proxy attends a general meeting in place of the
member and while in attendance has full right and power as if it was
the member present.

In fact this limitation of number of member representations a proxy
can have is plain silly. Every member should have a right to appoint a
proxy of their choice. If 1000 members end up appointing the same
individual to proxy so be it.

--

___
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: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

[Miku, E. Cornelius]

Interesting news in deed.

Congrats Andrew and Team. And AfriNIC.

Regards,

-- 
Miku

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Andrew Alston <
andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
>
>
> So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross posting
> to both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums
> in what follows.
>
>
>
> Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe.  There
> are now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> native IPv6 – and they are actively using it.  This was the next phase
> after our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>
>
>
> We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that
> particular location – and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic
> was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering – it did NOT come via long
> distance international links from Europe.
>
>
>
> On the AFRINIC side – we followed the policy and registered each and every
> static customer assignment in the whois database – it held up well as we
> sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> update – my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a
> long update to process in one go.
>
>
>
> So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready – we can now
> proudly say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>
>
>
> I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next
> 2 or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up.  Let’s wait and
> see as the updates happen.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> afnog mailing list
> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog
>
___
afnog mailing list
https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Jackson Muthili]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Badru Ntege  wrote:
> I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers 
> of proxies one can use.  The suggestion was not to eliminate.
>
> Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified.
>
> That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.
>
> We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too.
>
> The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity.

Nothing to discuss. A proxy attends a general meeting in place of the
member and while in attendance has full right and power as if it was
the member present.

In fact this limitation of number of member representations a proxy
can have is plain silly. Every member should have a right to appoint a
proxy of their choice. If 1000 members end up appointing the same
individual to proxy so be it.

--

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Badru Ntege]

I believe over the years we have modified how proxies are used. I.e numbers of 
proxies one can use.  The suggestion was not to eliminate. 

Even laws that have worked over centuries are modified. 

That's why I cannot come with 100 proxies to an election.  

We need to get clarity on how proxies impact quorum too. 

The issue needs to be discussed well to create full clarity. 

Regards 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 28 Sep 2016, at 6:40 PM, Andrew Alston  
> wrote:
> 
> +1 Mark,
> 
> I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in 
> business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other 
> such things hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act 
> I’ve ever read.
> 
> It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a proxy 
> to someone.
> 
> A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person 
> who gave it to them. 
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 
> 
> On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
>> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
>> achieve a representative outcome.  However this opens another
>> question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
>> 
>> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member
>> views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
>> through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members who
>> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.
> 
>If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
>person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
>100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
>them, my issue is with them, no one else.
> 
>Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
>certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
>another year.
> 
>If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
>them. I really don't see the problem.
> 
>> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
>> start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
>>> percentage (of something or the other)?
>>> 
>>> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
>>> were to double in a year or two.
>>> 
>>> Dewole.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Alan,
>>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
>>> small, but I think 10% is too large.
>> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
>> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
>> and can use something like the lowest or average number of
>> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
>> quorum requirement.
> Sure, I can get those numbers.
 Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
 The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
 members who attended the meetings.
 
 2013201420152016 E-Votes585949183 
 On-Site Votes45
 667762 TOTAL  103125126245
 
 Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
 30 resource members in the future.
 
 Alan ___ 
 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
> 
>-- 
>Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
>m...@posix.co.za   Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
>For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

[PATRICK KOUOBOU]

Well done and good initiative. Like barrack say where is next?

2016-09-29 7:50 GMT+01:00 Musa Stephen Honlue :

> Well done.
>
> On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno"  wrote:
>
>> Well done Andrew and Liquid,
>>
>> Way to go, where next?:-)
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston  wrote:
>> > Hi Guys,
>> >
>> > So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross
>> posting to
>> > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums
>> in
>> > what follows.
>> >
>> > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe.
>> There are
>> > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
>> > native IPv6 – and they are actively using it.  This was the next phase
>> after
>> > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
>> >
>> > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in
>> that
>> > particular location – and even more exciting, more than 70% of that
>> traffic
>> > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering – it did NOT come via
>> long
>> > distance international links from Europe.
>> >
>> > On the AFRINIC side – we followed the policy and registered each and
>> every
>> > static customer assignment in the whois database – it held up well as we
>> > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
>> > update – my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a
>> long
>> > update to process in one go.
>> >
>> > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready – we can now
>> proudly
>> > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
>> >
>> > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the
>> next 2
>> > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up.  Let’s wait and
>> see
>> > as the updates happen.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Andrew
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Barrack O. Otieno
>> +254721325277
>> +254733206359
>> Skype: barrack.otieno
>> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
>>
>> ___
>> afnog mailing list
>> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog
>
>
> ___
> afnog mailing list
> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog
>



-- 

*Patrick KOUOBOU*
*IT Manager *
*Ingenieur MIAGE*
Senior System and Network Administrator
*CCNA, LPIC-2, MCITP, MTCNA, MTCWE*
*www.cisformation.com *

*(+237) 676760710*
*(+237) 694339330*
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [afnog] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

[Musa Stephen Honlue]

Well done.

On Sep 29, 2016 09:51, "Barrack Otieno"  wrote:

> Well done Andrew and Liquid,
>
> Way to go, where next?:-)
>
>
> Regards
>
> On 9/29/16, Andrew Alston  wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross
> posting to
> > both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in
> > what follows.
> >
> > Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe.  There
> are
> > now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live,
> > native IPv6 – and they are actively using it.  This was the next phase
> after
> > our smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.
> >
> > We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in
> that
> > particular location – and even more exciting, more than 70% of that
> traffic
> > was sourced from CDN nodes and African peering – it did NOT come via long
> > distance international links from Europe.
> >
> > On the AFRINIC side – we followed the policy and registered each and
> every
> > static customer assignment in the whois database – it held up well as we
> > sent a bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single
> > update – my congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a
> long
> > update to process in one go.
> >
> > So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready – we can now
> proudly
> > say we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.
> >
> > I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the
> next 2
> > or 3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up.  Let’s wait and
> see
> > as the updates happen.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Barrack O. Otieno
> +254721325277
> +254733206359
> Skype: barrack.otieno
> PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
>
> ___
> afnog mailing list
> https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog
___
afnog mailing list
https://www.afnog.org/mailman/listinfo/afnog