Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Larus foundation fellowship

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss]

Actually, I think this is something to be done by Afrinic, with the help of PDP 
chairs and policy proposal authors. The goal is not to convince them about 
*any* policy proposal, just to have more open time for openly discussing them, 
and mainly oriented to newcomers, but not only.

 

I’ve actually suggested (several times) for the last couple of years, some of 
those activities, that I’ve suggested as well in other RIRs and have been 
implemented already, with a great success. Up to now, it has never been done, 
despite how much I’ve insisted (staff and co-chairs can confirm that I’ve once 
and again provided lots of those ideas).

 

Here is a copy & paste of an email about that with the staff:

 

… concrete actions some of the in every meeting:

    

1) Setting up open sessions for discussion with policy proposal authors. 
The idea is that all the authors (willing to contribute) have a short 
explanation of each policy proposal (no slides, a common slide with titles of 
all policy proposals just for reference), and they can discuss openly with the 
participants. There is not any decision process here.

 

    In order to plan agenda, I suggest doing this after the session for 
newcomers and/or sponsored fellows, same meeting room, so the people don't need 
to move, make it as easier as possible for them. In LACNIC we did that on 
Sunday evening because most of the folks travel on the morning. Distances and 
flights aren't the same in this region, so we should consider that.

    

2) Setting up specific tables for lunch for the same. Similar to above, so 
people with interest or questions about policy proposal, can sit down with 
authors to have a more open discussion.

    

3) Group Dynamics. Take newcomers and other people interested in the PDP. 
One morning before the policy-day. Create 3-4 small groups depending on how 
many folks participate (may be more if there are more people, but you need one 
staff or co-chair for each group), and each group should work in 
"understanding" a different policy proposal, looking for pros-cons, and trying 
to "develop" consensus on it and then presenting shortly their results to all 
the groups. The idea is that they get used to the process and can bring their 
views to the policy day. As the previous ones, this is not a formal part of the 
PDP. But in LACNIC has been useful because new people get engaged in the list 
and in the mics of the meeting.

 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 2/7/19 20:55, "Noah"  escribió:

 

 

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 17:11 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss, 
 wrote:

 

When anyone present a summary of a policy proposal (which has been done already 
by the authors) you’re directly or indirectly doing your own analysis and 
arguing for or against based on your own perspective. This is influencing 
participants, it can be never 100% unbiassed.

+1 Jordi 

 

I believe Wafa has provided far much better educational materials (unbiassed) 
on the policy development process to all the newbie's who can parse through and 
understand through those various links the origins of AfriNIC and how the 
entire pdp process works.

 

If anything, new folks would find the rpd list and its archives even more 
educational than a well documented and somewhat misleading document which is 
suspect.

 

I have been party to various working groups that lobby for or against some 
policies which is completely fine but the Larus Foundation approach is on some 
next level and seriously undermines the entire pdp process.

 

Noah



**
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] Larus foundation fellowship

[Noah]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 21:37 Ousmane M. TESSA,  wrote:

> Huumm! Noah.
> Better ask difference between "sponsorship to educate newcomers" or
> lobbying to push specific agenda in Africa.
> Elsewhere, the fear of Justice will deter most of people to even think
> about this trick.
>

Tessa

While I wait for Viven response of their activity beyond Afrinic service
region...

I have had to go to the foundation website and the 5th faq question
specifically targets folks from Africa how attractive is that.!

Have we become this vulnerable?

https://www.larusfoundation.org/faq/

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Larus foundation fellowship

[Noah]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 17:11 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss, <
community-discuss@afrinic.net> wrote:

>
> When anyone present a summary of a policy proposal (which has been done
> already by the authors) you’re directly or indirectly doing your own
> analysis and arguing for or against based on your own perspective. This is
> influencing participants, it can be never 100% unbiassed.
>
+1 Jordi

I believe Wafa has provided far much better educational materials
(unbiassed) on the policy development process to all the newbie's who can
parse through and understand through those various links the origins of
AfriNIC and how the entire pdp process works.

If anything, new folks would find the rpd list and its archives even more
educational than a well documented and somewhat misleading document which
is suspect.

I have been party to various working groups that lobby for or against some
policies which is completely fine but the Larus Foundation approach is on
some next level and seriously undermines the entire pdp process.

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Larus foundation fellowship

[Daniel Yakmut via Community-Discuss]

Pls Tom, note that Larus Cloud and Larus Foundation are different entities.

Just for the records.

Daniel

On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 4:24 PM Tom Ochang  wrote:

> Hello there,
>   I am an advocate for freedom of speech and expression and I think
> that what Larus foundation did was to do a summary of the policies to
> enable it's fellows to understand the policies better before discussions
> during the PDP and concerning the 16million IP addresses, I don't think
> Larus Stole them but I guess they were acquired legally by Larus
> foundation. Finally, I urge Larus foundation to put more effort in making
> summaries of all the policies that are meant to be discussed during the PDP
> and also place it in a public domain for newbies.
>
>
>  ..Tom Ochang
>  Nigeria.
>
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 16:04 Andrew Alston, 
> wrote:
>
>> Just one final thought on this –
>>
>> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
>> to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Friends of Voltaire, 1906)
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Andrew Alston 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 July 2019 15:34
>> *To:* wafa DAHMANI ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
>> *Cc:* r...@afrinic.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship
>>
>>
>>
>> Wafa,
>>
>> So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the
>> policies – and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros
>> and cons.  Yes, Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its
>> position, but – one of the things that I have long accepted in my life is –
>> if you believe in something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank –
>> the summary that I see in this document – is something that by and large –
>> should have been done long before they got around to it.
>>
>> If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free
>> to go and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor
>> people to come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those
>> people as I so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s
>> life – but it certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature
>> of internet policy development.  Do you think that similar does not happen
>> elsewhere?  People lobby for the positions that they care about.  It
>> happens in politics, it happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when
>> someone else does the same thing.
>>
>> Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I
>> want to quote from the OIF website: *IOF organises political activities
>> and actions of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking
>> populations.*
>>
>> Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the
>> room with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to
>> Africa – it does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does
>> not say is to the benefit of the continent – it singles out a single
>> demographic on the continent and says – we do what we do for their
>> benefit.   Now, let me be very clear, if they wish to do that – I’m
>> actually ok with it – though I admit I have waivered on this stance –
>> however, we cannot say – because it’s a government political organization –
>> it’s ok – but when a member chooses to have a foundation – and sponsor
>> people to the meetings – and then lobby for the positions that member is
>> passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is called hypocrisy.
>>
>> In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of
>> paper and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the
>> same happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the
>> position that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they
>> had off the paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t
>> understand the position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind
>> that?  And all of that – is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok
>> then – suddenly it changes now because we don’t like the individual doing
>> it?
>>
>> Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is
>> not a friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong
>> things to say to him to his face, in front of others who will testify to
>> what I said to him – however – I respect his rights as a member to
>> participate in what is essentially a democratic process, that means – I
>> respect his right to lobby for his views, I respect his right to put boots
>> on the ground, and I respect his right to have his say.  In the same way –
>> I respect the right of any member to do that – and I respect the right of
>> the members to then rebut what is said if they do not agree with it.It
>> is through this lobbying position and through the back and forth that
>> accompanies it, that great policy is born – it is not through acquiescence,
>> nor is it through the silencing of 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Ousmane M. TESSA]

Huumm! Noah.
Better ask difference between "sponsorship to educate newcomers" or  
lobbying to push specific agenda in Africa.
Elsewhere, the fear of Justice will deter most of people to even think  
about this trick.

Ousmane TESSA


Noah  a écrit :


On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 16:04 Anne-vivien Paris, 
wrote:



If you have any questions regarding the Foundation and its events, please
do not hesitate to contact us.



A quick one Anne-vivien Paris if you dont mind.

I am curious to know if you have supported similar activities and events in
other RIR other than AfriNIC?

Noah



--
**
Dr Ousmane MOUSSA TESSA
Département de mathématiques et d'informatique
Université A. Moumouni, Niamey, NIGER

Adresse postale: B.P. 10.111 Niamey, NIGER
Téléphone (domicile): +227 20 31 52 28
  (mobile) :  +227 93 77 74 93 /  91 49 16  39 / 96 27 99 92

E-mail: ousmane(at)musatesa.net ou musatesa(at)yahoo.com
Skype : musatesa



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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Noah]

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 16:04 Anne-vivien Paris, 
wrote:

>
> If you have any questions regarding the Foundation and its events, please
> do not hesitate to contact us.
>

A quick one Anne-vivien Paris if you dont mind.

I am curious to know if you have supported similar activities and events in
other RIR other than AfriNIC?

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Augustine CHII Ngek]

Hi everyone, hello Wafa
I am happy you have brought these resources to people like myself new to
AFRINIC business. Thanks so much for the educational materials. A lot of
talking goes on here but I am sure some people can talk now with
understanding.

To me for whatever reason the fellowship was for, the provision of these
materials surpasses it all. Teach the community or do something to the
community and you can get the community's support in any matter that come
up.

We shall judge you who came into the board by what you shall do to make
AFRINIC stronger against what is suspected. We are interested at
discussions that will push AFRINIC forward. People have been voted into
board so discussions concerning what the community wants AFRINIC to be at
the end of their mandate should start now. Please let the discussion about
people end, yes education for the next African leaders!
NGEK Augustine CHII
Yaounde Cameroon



On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 10:35 wafa DAHMANI,  wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> It fell under public domain, that those who benefited from Larus
> foundation fellowship to attend the last afrinic meeting in Kampala, were
> given a  confidential  Education package on AFRINIC Number Resources
> Policy proposals detailed in the following link:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg
>
>
> The document lists the proposals to be discussed, Larus Foundation views
> of Pros and Cons on each of them, selective PDWG participants interventions
> on the proposals.
>
>
>
> The education package so proposed intends to condition these participants
> views on the proposals  and their contributions at the PPM and after
>
>
>
> I like to remind us that the PDP is open for any individual willing to
> participate. Views expressed are personal. No need to know who is behind
> each source email address... only opinions expressed in the context of the
> PDP matter. The substance of contribution really matter. Diversity of views
> are encouraged. Lack of disagreement is more important  than of agreement.
> Also PDP is not a matter of volume, repetition or persistence.
>
>
>
>  RFC 7282 section 6 and 7 are clear  on these aspects of  the rough
> consensus  process.
>
>
>
>  Section 6
>
> One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough
> consensus.
>
>
>
> Section 7
>
> Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough
> consensus
>
>
>
> My African fellows,
>
>
>
> Your desire to participate to AFRINIC policy development Process is
> legitimate and must be encouraged. I hope the last meeting  was useful to
> you and allow you to identify the issues, understand what is going on and
> what Africa needs...  I hope you’ve made your minds and  now able to
> speak on your personal  capacity..
>
>
>
> The real education package  is as below:
>
> =
>
>
>
> Proposal to establish AFRINIC
>
>
> http://web01.jnb.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/862-kuala-lumpur-1997
>
>
>
> IANA report  on AFRINIC (Accreditation)
>
> https://www.iana.org/reports/2005/afrinic-report-05aug2005.pdf
>
>
>
> AFRINIC constitution
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws
>
>
>
> Registration Service  Agreement
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa
>
>
>
> AFRINIC policy manual
>
> https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
>
>
>
> AFRINIC policies before the adoption of the CPM
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-pre
>
>
>
> AFRINIC PDP
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/policy
>
>
>
> Rough Consensus
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
>
>
>
> AFRINIC current policy proposals
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals
>
>
>
> RiRs PDPs
>
> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/
>
>
>
> RIR comparative  policy overview
>
> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/rir-comparative-policy-overview/
>
> ==
>
>
>
> Please read and process them, ask questions and find your way.
>
>
>
> Come build African Internet by Africans.
>
>
>
> As for Larus Foundation, your relationship to cloud innovation, afrinic
> member with suspicious activities, holding 6 millions of IPv4 is long
> established and discussed many times on this list. I hope the fellows would
> find these discussions in the archives.
>
>
>
> I call the attention of the board on the  repetitive attempts of this
> resource member to hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions...  the
> provisions of the bylaws and RSA must  carefully be applied to recall
> members to acceptable code of conduct.
>
>
>
> The African Internet community as well as the global Internet community
> must pay close attention and protect the RIRs Policy development process
> and operations.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Wafa
> ___
> 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] Larus foundation fellowship

[Tom Ochang]

Hello there,
  I am an advocate for freedom of speech and expression and I think
that what Larus foundation did was to do a summary of the policies to
enable it's fellows to understand the policies better before discussions
during the PDP and concerning the 16million IP addresses, I don't think
Larus Stole them but I guess they were acquired legally by Larus
foundation. Finally, I urge Larus foundation to put more effort in making
summaries of all the policies that are meant to be discussed during the PDP
and also place it in a public domain for newbies.


 ..Tom Ochang
 Nigeria.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 16:04 Andrew Alston, 
wrote:

> Just one final thought on this –
>
> “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
> to say it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Friends of Voltaire, 1906)
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Alston 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 July 2019 15:34
> *To:* wafa DAHMANI ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
> *Cc:* r...@afrinic.net
> *Subject:* Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship
>
>
>
> Wafa,
>
> So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies
> – and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.
> Yes, Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but –
> one of the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe
> in something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary
> that I see in this document – is something that by and large – should have
> been done long before they got around to it.
>
> If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free
> to go and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor
> people to come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those
> people as I so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s
> life – but it certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature
> of internet policy development.  Do you think that similar does not happen
> elsewhere?  People lobby for the positions that they care about.  It
> happens in politics, it happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when
> someone else does the same thing.
>
> Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I
> want to quote from the OIF website: *IOF organises political activities
> and actions of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking
> populations.*
>
> Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the
> room with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to
> Africa – it does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does
> not say is to the benefit of the continent – it singles out a single
> demographic on the continent and says – we do what we do for their
> benefit.   Now, let me be very clear, if they wish to do that – I’m
> actually ok with it – though I admit I have waivered on this stance –
> however, we cannot say – because it’s a government political organization –
> it’s ok – but when a member chooses to have a foundation – and sponsor
> people to the meetings – and then lobby for the positions that member is
> passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is called hypocrisy.
>
> In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of
> paper and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the
> same happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the
> position that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they
> had off the paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t
> understand the position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind
> that?  And all of that – is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok
> then – suddenly it changes now because we don’t like the individual doing
> it?
>
> Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is not
> a friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong things
> to say to him to his face, in front of others who will testify to what I
> said to him – however – I respect his rights as a member to participate in
> what is essentially a democratic process, that means – I respect his right
> to lobby for his views, I respect his right to put boots on the ground, and
> I respect his right to have his say.  In the same way – I respect the right
> of any member to do that – and I respect the right of the members to then
> rebut what is said if they do not agree with it.It is through this
> lobbying position and through the back and forth that accompanies it, that
> great policy is born – it is not through acquiescence, nor is it through
> the silencing of the rights of others.
>
> My view – if anyone wants to come into the room and have their say – so be
> it – that is bottom up.  If people want to lobby their positions – so be it
> – that is bottom up.  If people want to spend money running tv adverts
> about their 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Andrew Alston]

Just one final thought on this –
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say 
it” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall (Friends of Voltaire, 1906)
Andrew


From: Andrew Alston 
Sent: Tuesday, 2 July 2019 15:34
To: wafa DAHMANI ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Cc: r...@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

Wafa,
So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies – 
and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.  Yes, 
Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but – one of 
the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe in 
something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary that I see 
in this document – is something that by and large – should have been done long 
before they got around to it.
If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free to go 
and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor people to 
come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those people as I 
so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s life – but it 
certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature of internet policy 
development.  Do you think that similar does not happen elsewhere?  People 
lobby for the positions that they care about.  It happens in politics, it 
happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when someone else does the same 
thing.
Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I want 
to quote from the OIF website: IOF organises political activities and actions 
of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking populations.
Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the room 
with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to Africa – it 
does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does not say is to the 
benefit of the continent – it singles out a single demographic on the continent 
and says – we do what we do for their benefit.   Now, let me be very clear, if 
they wish to do that – I’m actually ok with it – though I admit I have waivered 
on this stance – however, we cannot say – because it’s a government political 
organization – it’s ok – but when a member chooses to have a foundation – and 
sponsor people to the meetings – and then lobby for the positions that member 
is passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is called hypocrisy.
In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of paper 
and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the same 
happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the position 
that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they had off the 
paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t understand the 
position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind that?  And all of that 
– is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok then – suddenly it changes 
now because we don’t like the individual doing it?
Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is not a 
friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong things to say 
to him to his face, in front of others who will testify to what I said to him – 
however – I respect his rights as a member to participate in what is 
essentially a democratic process, that means – I respect his right to lobby for 
his views, I respect his right to put boots on the ground, and I respect his 
right to have his say.  In the same way – I respect the right of any member to 
do that – and I respect the right of the members to then rebut what is said if 
they do not agree with it.It is through this lobbying position and through 
the back and forth that accompanies it, that great policy is born – it is not 
through acquiescence, nor is it through the silencing of the rights of others.
My view – if anyone wants to come into the room and have their say – so be it – 
that is bottom up.  If people want to lobby their positions – so be it – that 
is bottom up.  If people want to spend money running tv adverts about their 
positions for all I care – so be it – that is the nature of the democratic 
position.  If people want to bus a thousand people who share their views – 
again – so be it – that is the democratic process.   However, it is the 
community who then need to rebut – but – the rebuttal should be on the policy 
itself.  What I see here however, is a rebuttal of policy and a lobbying 
position taken on the *content* of the policy – unlike what I have seen time 
and again in the meetings where the lobbying position has NOTHING to do with 
the content or the policy.
So rather than malign Lazarus for their actions here – quite frankly, reading 
this document, and as much as as I have said, Lu and I have some serious 
differences, I applaud Lazarus for the comprehensive work – 

Re: [Community-Discuss] [rpd] Larus foundation fellowship

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss]

Hi Andrew,

I’m not sure to agree with your view. I fully agree on freedom of expression, 
but there is a fairness and transparency point here. It is about respect to the 
PDP (and consequently the community).

When anyone present a summary of a policy proposal (which has been done already 
by the authors) you’re directly or indirectly doing your own analysis and 
arguing for or against based on your own perspective. This is influencing 
participants, it can be never 100% unbiassed.

Everybody is *free* to influence (or as you say lobby), but the fair way to do 
so is by discussing in the RPD mailing list, which is meant for that. Otherwise 
why we have the list?

If that document was shared in the list, upfront the meeting, instead of being 
presented only for the fellows, that will had made a difference.

Also, looking at the document we may be having part of the information that was 
provided during that presentation.

I think is wonderful that organizations like Larus Foundation may bring people 
to participate in the meetings, but why this needs to be done by their own 
instead of they just providing the money to Afrinic, agree in the selections 
process and not having direct contact with the fellows?

I’ve mention about this already long time ago:

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2018/008849.html

 

And by the way, the PDP is not about democracy, but consensus.

As a proposals author, I’ve *never* tried to convince anyone outside the PDP 
list. I think this is the only way to be fair. I got many questions and 
opinions about the policy proposals in private emails, and my response is 
always the same: what you tell me here is not so “useful”, please go to the 
list.

Moreover, I sometimes send tweets about my policy proposals, but in a very 
neutral way, just informative and clearly stating that the discussion must 
happen in the list. Example:

https://twitter.com/jordipalet/status/1139835324782088192

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 2/7/19 14:39, "Andrew Alston"  escribió:

 

Wafa,

So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies – 
and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.  Yes, 
Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but – one of 
the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe in 
something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary that I see 
in this document – is something that by and large – should have been done long 
before they got around to it.

If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free to go 
and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor people to 
come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those people as I 
so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s life – but it 
certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature of internet policy 
development.  Do you think that similar does not happen elsewhere?  People 
lobby for the positions that they care about.  It happens in politics, it 
happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when someone else does the same 
thing.

Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I want 
to quote from the OIF website: IOF organises political activities and actions 
of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking populations.

Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the room 
with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to Africa – it 
does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does not say is to the 
benefit of the continent – it singles out a single demographic on the continent 
and says – we do what we do for their benefit.   Now, let me be very clear, if 
they wish to do that – I’m actually ok with it – though I admit I have waivered 
on this stance – however, we cannot say – because it’s a government political 
organization – it’s ok – but when a member chooses to have a foundation – and 
sponsor people to the meetings – and then lobby for the positions that member 
is passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is called hypocrisy.

In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of paper 
and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the same 
happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the position 
that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they had off the 
paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t understand the 
position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind that?  And all of that 
– is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok then – suddenly it changes 
now because we don’t like the individual doing it?

Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is not a 
friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong things to say 
to him to his face, in front of 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Taiwo Oyewande]

Hi all,

Taking a good look at this resource, it is obviously a summary of the policies 
to be discussed. 

Larus fellowship tends towards promoting the youth - students included-. I 
think this summary will be a good starting point for new members who are fresh 
in the policy development process. 

On this note, i will like to encourage Afrinic to emulate the foundation and 
come up with an official summary like this before every meeting to enable new 
and interested members get up to speed quickly.

Cheers. 

Taiwo O


> 
>> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 20:36, Andrew Alston  
>> wrote:
>> Wafa,
>> 
>> So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies – 
>> and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.  
>> Yes, Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but – 
>> one of the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe 
>> in something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary that 
>> I see in this document – is something that by and large – should have been 
>> done long before they got around to it.
>> 
>> If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free to 
>> go and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor people 
>> to come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those people 
>> as I so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s life – 
>> but it certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature of 
>> internet policy development.  Do you think that similar does not happen 
>> elsewhere?  People lobby for the positions that they care about.  It happens 
>> in politics, it happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when someone 
>> else does the same thing.
>> 
>> Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I 
>> want to quote from the OIF website: IOF organises political activities and 
>> actions of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking populations.
>> 
>> Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the 
>> room with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to Africa 
>> – it does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does not say 
>> is to the benefit of the continent – it singles out a single demographic on 
>> the continent and says – we do what we do for their benefit.   Now, let me 
>> be very clear, if they wish to do that – I’m actually ok with it – though I 
>> admit I have waivered on this stance – however, we cannot say – because it’s 
>> a government political organization – it’s ok – but when a member chooses to 
>> have a foundation – and sponsor people to the meetings – and then lobby for 
>> the positions that member is passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is 
>> called hypocrisy.
>> 
>> In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of 
>> paper and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the 
>> same happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the 
>> position that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they 
>> had off the paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t 
>> understand the position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind 
>> that?  And all of that – is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok 
>> then – suddenly it changes now because we don’t like the individual doing it?
>> 
>> Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is not a 
>> friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong things to 
>> say to him to his face, in front of others who will testify to what I said 
>> to him – however – I respect his rights as a member to participate in what 
>> is essentially a democratic process, that means – I respect his right to 
>> lobby for his views, I respect his right to put boots on the ground, and I 
>> respect his right to have his say.  In the same way – I respect the right of 
>> any member to do that – and I respect the right of the members to then rebut 
>> what is said if they do not agree with it.It is through this lobbying 
>> position and through the back and forth that accompanies it, that great 
>> policy is born – it is not through acquiescence, nor is it through the 
>> silencing of the rights of others.
>> 
>> My view – if anyone wants to come into the room and have their say – so be 
>> it – that is bottom up.  If people want to lobby their positions – so be it 
>> – that is bottom up.  If people want to spend money running tv adverts about 
>> their positions for all I care – so be it – that is the nature of the 
>> democratic position.  If people want to bus a thousand people who share 
>> their views – again – so be it – that is the democratic process.   However, 
>> it is the community who then need to rebut – but – the rebuttal should be on 
>> the policy itself.  What I see here however, is a 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Anne-vivien Paris]

Hi, I would like to clarify the following:

1. There is no any form of NDA required to be signed by our fellow. The
materials we distribute are in public domain; everyone can access to it.
The content is unbiased and factual and we do not keep it as something
confidential. We do not know where you procure this and with what means,
but the content is accessible to anyone who place a request on it. All
arguments listed on the booklet are selected from discussions on the RDP
list with the names of the author given out of consideration of
anti-plagiarism and respect. Hence, pros and cons represent the opinion of
the community instead of that of the Foundation.

2.  The Foundation is a registered NGO in Hong Kong which is independent of
any other organisation. The foundation has its own legal entity and
structure, and your named  cloud innovation does not interfere with
Foundation’s affairs. We urge you to reconsider your statement and provide
supporting documents/evidences regarding this otherwise we consider this as
defamation.

3.  Larus Foundation does not represent any party’s single interest. As
mentioned in the above, it is a legally registered and recognised NGO which
serves the community instead of a single party. Hence, it is unjust to
correlate the Foundation with any single party and Foundation has never
“hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions”. Your statement does not have
any ground. This can be considered as defamation without any concrete
evidenced provided.

We support fellows of various nationalities to attend RIR meetings,
including but not limited to Tunisia, Uganda, Congo, South Korea and
America. We believe the Internet is One and thus all parties in the world
are concerned. The Foundation believes that we all work towards a single
goal, ie a better Internet irrespective of our nationalities.

We sincerely urge you to re-examine and reconsider your statements to
prevent any unnecessary understanding within the community.

For your reference, Larus Foundation is based in Hong Kong, which serves as
an organisation to promote Internet number resources education. We aim to
educate the general public, regardless of their age, gender, nationality,
race, educational level and background as we believe everyone is a
stakeholder in the world of Internet.  We uphold a non-selective, fair and
transparent principle.

We carry out a series of events, including conferences, seminars, workshops
and fellowship programme. Our fellowship programme provides support for
various parties, particularly students and academics to participate  in
policy-making and Internet governance conferences.

If you are interested about our Foundation, you can find more here:
https://www.larusfoundation.org/

Also, you are welcome to apply for our upcoming fellowship programme for
AFRINIC 31:
https://www.larusfoundation.org/about-the-fellowship/

A brief timeline for your reference:
Application Opened 1st July, 2019
First Interview 30th July, 2019
Application Closed 30th July, 2019
Second Interview 18th August, 2019
Education workshop and seminar 3rd September - 21st September, 2019
Final Interview 24th October, 2019
Result & Confirmation 3rd November, 2019

We can also be reached via email and phone. If you have any questions
regarding the Foundation and its events, please do not hesitate to contact
us.

Vivien
*Vivien PARIS*
*Larus FOUNDATION*
p:+44 7746 416450
w: www.larusfoundation.org
a:B5,11/F,TML Tower,No.3 Hoi Shing Road,Tsuen Wan,HKSAR

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 20:36, Andrew Alston 
wrote:

> Wafa,
>
> So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies
> – and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.
> Yes, Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but –
> one of the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe
> in something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary
> that I see in this document – is something that by and large – should have
> been done long before they got around to it.
>
> If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free
> to go and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor
> people to come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those
> people as I so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s
> life – but it certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature
> of internet policy development.  Do you think that similar does not happen
> elsewhere?  People lobby for the positions that they care about.  It
> happens in politics, it happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when
> someone else does the same thing.
>
> Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I
> want to quote from the OIF website: *IOF organises political activities
> and actions of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking
> populations.*
>
> Yet – this is an organization that for years has 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[DANIEL NANGHAKA]

Thank Wafa for sharing the resources.

This is a good insight that members should be educated about the AFRINIC
PDP.
And further it is critical that Capacity building is done for the
respective new members to understand or learn about Policy Development
procedures and how the policies are formulated.
More to that - the need to drive consensus in a PDP.

Many do not understand this.

- Daniel K. Nanghaka
ᐧ

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 12:34, wafa DAHMANI  wrote:

> Hi
>
>
>
> It fell under public domain, that those who benefited from Larus
> foundation fellowship to attend the last afrinic meeting in Kampala, were
> given a  confidential  Education package on AFRINIC Number Resources
> Policy proposals detailed in the following link:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg
>
>
> The document lists the proposals to be discussed, Larus Foundation views
> of Pros and Cons on each of them, selective PDWG participants interventions
> on the proposals.
>
>
>
> The education package so proposed intends to condition these participants
> views on the proposals  and their contributions at the PPM and after
>
>
>
> I like to remind us that the PDP is open for any individual willing to
> participate. Views expressed are personal. No need to know who is behind
> each source email address... only opinions expressed in the context of the
> PDP matter. The substance of contribution really matter. Diversity of views
> are encouraged. Lack of disagreement is more important  than of agreement.
> Also PDP is not a matter of volume, repetition or persistence.
>
>
>
>  RFC 7282 section 6 and 7 are clear  on these aspects of  the rough
> consensus  process.
>
>
>
>  Section 6
>
> One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough
> consensus.
>
>
>
> Section 7
>
> Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough
> consensus
>
>
>
> My African fellows,
>
>
>
> Your desire to participate to AFRINIC policy development Process is
> legitimate and must be encouraged. I hope the last meeting  was useful to
> you and allow you to identify the issues, understand what is going on and
> what Africa needs...  I hope you’ve made your minds and  now able to
> speak on your personal  capacity..
>
>
>
> The real education package  is as below:
>
> =
>
>
>
> Proposal to establish AFRINIC
>
>
> http://web01.jnb.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/862-kuala-lumpur-1997
>
>
>
> IANA report  on AFRINIC (Accreditation)
>
> https://www.iana.org/reports/2005/afrinic-report-05aug2005.pdf
>
>
>
> AFRINIC constitution
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws
>
>
>
> Registration Service  Agreement
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa
>
>
>
> AFRINIC policy manual
>
> https://afrinic.net/policy/manual
>
>
>
> AFRINIC policies before the adoption of the CPM
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-pre
>
>
>
> AFRINIC PDP
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/policy
>
>
>
> Rough Consensus
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282
>
>
>
> AFRINIC current policy proposals
>
> https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals
>
>
>
> RiRs PDPs
>
> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/
>
>
>
> RIR comparative  policy overview
>
> https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/rir-comparative-policy-overview/
>
> ==
>
>
>
> Please read and process them, ask questions and find your way.
>
>
>
> Come build African Internet by Africans.
>
>
>
> As for Larus Foundation, your relationship to cloud innovation, afrinic
> member with suspicious activities, holding 6 millions of IPv4 is long
> established and discussed many times on this list. I hope the fellows would
> find these discussions in the archives.
>
>
>
> I call the attention of the board on the  repetitive attempts of this
> resource member to hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions...  the
> provisions of the bylaws and RSA must  carefully be applied to recall
> members to acceptable code of conduct.
>
>
>
> The African Internet community as well as the global Internet community
> must pay close attention and protect the RIRs Policy development process
> and operations.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Wafa
> ___
> 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] Larus foundation fellowship

[Andrew Alston]

Wafa,
So – let me say this.  I see a document here – which lays out the policies – 
and provides a perspective of problems, it also lists the pros and cons.  Yes, 
Lazarus may have used the foundation to lobby for its position, but – one of 
the things that I have long accepted in my life is – if you believe in 
something – you have to lobby for it – and to be frank – the summary that I see 
in this document – is something that by and large – should have been done long 
before they got around to it.
If I, as an individual, feel strongly about something, I am entirely free to go 
and advocate for my position.  I am also entirely free to sponsor people to 
come to a public meeting – and I am entirely free to choose those people as I 
so wish, if I choose the people who agree with me, well, that’s life – but it 
certainly aint against the rules, it is the political nature of internet policy 
development.  Do you think that similar does not happen elsewhere?  People 
lobby for the positions that they care about.  It happens in politics, it 
happens in life, and yet now we want to cry when someone else does the same 
thing.
Let me also say – it’s not like this hasn’t been happening before – and I want 
to quote from the OIF website: IOF organises political activities and actions 
of multilateral cooperation that benefit French-speaking populations.
Yet – this is an organization that for years has spent money filling the room 
with people – and that statement does not say – is of benefit to Africa – it 
does not say is of benefit to the African continent – it does not say is to the 
benefit of the continent – it singles out a single demographic on the continent 
and says – we do what we do for their benefit.   Now, let me be very clear, if 
they wish to do that – I’m actually ok with it – though I admit I have waivered 
on this stance – however, we cannot say – because it’s a government political 
organization – it’s ok – but when a member chooses to have a foundation – and 
sponsor people to the meetings – and then lobby for the positions that member 
is passionate about – suddenly its wrong.  That is called hypocrisy.
In Point Noire, I watched people walk to the microphone – with slips of paper 
and read a comment on a policy – and then go and sit down – and the same 
happened in Botswana.  Except, what I found was, when queried on the position 
that was taken at the microphone, the individual reading what they had off the 
paper, had patently obviously never read the policy and didn’t understand the 
position they were taking themselves.  So who was behind that?  And all of that 
– is on video for the world to see – but – it was ok then – suddenly it changes 
now because we don’t like the individual doing it?
Sorry – this isn’t the way it works – and let me be clear – Lu Heng is not a 
friend of mine, and in fact in Mauritius I had some pretty strong things to say 
to him to his face, in front of others who will testify to what I said to him – 
however – I respect his rights as a member to participate in what is 
essentially a democratic process, that means – I respect his right to lobby for 
his views, I respect his right to put boots on the ground, and I respect his 
right to have his say.  In the same way – I respect the right of any member to 
do that – and I respect the right of the members to then rebut what is said if 
they do not agree with it.It is through this lobbying position and through 
the back and forth that accompanies it, that great policy is born – it is not 
through acquiescence, nor is it through the silencing of the rights of others.
My view – if anyone wants to come into the room and have their say – so be it – 
that is bottom up.  If people want to lobby their positions – so be it – that 
is bottom up.  If people want to spend money running tv adverts about their 
positions for all I care – so be it – that is the nature of the democratic 
position.  If people want to bus a thousand people who share their views – 
again – so be it – that is the democratic process.   However, it is the 
community who then need to rebut – but – the rebuttal should be on the policy 
itself.  What I see here however, is a rebuttal of policy and a lobbying 
position taken on the *content* of the policy – unlike what I have seen time 
and again in the meetings where the lobbying position has NOTHING to do with 
the content or the policy.
So rather than malign Lazarus for their actions here – quite frankly, reading 
this document, and as much as as I have said, Lu and I have some serious 
differences, I applaud Lazarus for the comprehensive work – and I applaud them 
for taking a stance that was based on the policy and I embrace their right to 
lobby for their position in any way shape or form.  That is not to say I agree 
with the positions taken in this document – I will reserve my policy comments 
for the policies and based on my own interpretation of such – but – I embrace 
the fact that at least, it 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Larus foundation fellowship

[Badru Ntege]

Wafa

Thanks for this response.  It’s critical that new members open their eyes and 
minds and make reasoned unbiased contributions to the PDP.

Sent from my iPhone

On 2 Jul 2019, at 12:35, wafa DAHMANI mailto:w...@ati.tn>> wrote:

Hi

It fell under public domain, that those who benefited from Larus foundation 
fellowship to attend the last afrinic meeting in Kampala, were given a  
confidential  Education package on AFRINIC Number Resources Policy proposals 
detailed in the following link:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg

The document lists the proposals to be discussed, Larus Foundation views of 
Pros and Cons on each of them, selective PDWG participants interventions on the 
proposals.

The education package so proposed intends to condition these participants views 
on the proposals  and their contributions at the PPM and after

I like to remind us that the PDP is open for any individual willing to 
participate. Views expressed are personal. No need to know who is behind each 
source email address... only opinions expressed in the context of the PDP 
matter. The substance of contribution really matter. Diversity of views are 
encouraged. Lack of disagreement is more important  than of agreement.  Also 
PDP is not a matter of volume, repetition or persistence.

 RFC 7282 section 6 and 7 are clear  on these aspects of  the rough consensus  
process.

 Section 6
One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus.

Section 7
Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough consensus

My African fellows,

Your desire to participate to AFRINIC policy development Process is legitimate 
and must be encouraged. I hope the last meeting  was useful to you and allow 
you to identify the issues, understand what is going on and what Africa 
needs...  I hope you’ve made your minds and  now able to speak on your personal 
 capacity..

The real education package  is as below:
=

Proposal to establish AFRINIC
http://web01.jnb.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/862-kuala-lumpur-1997

IANA report  on AFRINIC (Accreditation)
https://www.iana.org/reports/2005/afrinic-report-05aug2005.pdf

AFRINIC constitution
https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws

Registration Service  Agreement
https://www.afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa

AFRINIC policy manual
https://afrinic.net/policy/manual

AFRINIC policies before the adoption of the CPM
https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-pre

AFRINIC PDP
https://www.afrinic.net/policy

Rough Consensus
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282

AFRINIC current policy proposals
https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals

RiRs PDPs
https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/

RIR comparative  policy overview
https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/rir-comparative-policy-overview/
==

Please read and process them, ask questions and find your way.

Come build African Internet by Africans.

As for Larus Foundation, your relationship to cloud innovation, afrinic member 
with suspicious activities, holding 6 millions of IPv4 is long established and 
discussed many times on this list. I hope the fellows would find these 
discussions in the archives.

I call the attention of the board on the  repetitive attempts of this resource 
member to hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions...  the provisions of the 
bylaws and RSA must  carefully be applied to recall members to acceptable code 
of conduct.

The African Internet community as well as the global Internet community must 
pay close attention and protect the RIRs Policy development process and 
operations.


-Wafa
___
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] Larus foundation fellowship

[wafa DAHMANI]

Hi 



It fell under public domain, that those who benefited from Larus foundation 
fellowship to attend the last afrinic meeting in Kampala, were given a 
confidential Education package on AFRINIC Number Resources Policy proposals 
detailed in the following link: 




https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kf7K8JdL-zl5NYjlboltmoXeq2mAJvNg 




The document lists the proposals to be discussed, Larus Foundation views of 
Pros and Cons on each of them, selective PDWG participants interventions on the 
proposals. 



The education package so proposed intends to condition these participants views 
on the proposals and their contributions at the PPM and after 



I like to remind us that the PDP is open for any individual willing to 
participate. Views expressed are personal. No need to know who is behind each 
source email address... only opinions expressed in the context of the PDP 
matter. The substance of contribution really matter. Diversity of views are 
encouraged. Lack of disagreement is more important than of agreement. Also PDP 
is not a matter of volume, repetition or persistence. 



RFC 7282 section 6 and 7 are clear on these aspects of the rough consensus 
process. 



Section 6 

One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus. 



Section 7 

Five people for and one hundred people against might still be rough consensus 



My African fellows, 



Your desire to participate to AFRINIC policy development Process is legitimate 
and must be encouraged. I hope the last meeting was useful to you and allow you 
to identify the issues, understand what is going on and what Africa needs... I 
hope you’ve made your minds and now able to speak on your personal capacity.. 



The real education package is as below: 

= 



Proposal to establish AFRINIC 

http://web01.jnb.afrinic.net/en/library/policies/archive/ppm-minutes/862-kuala-lumpur-1997
 



IANA report on AFRINIC (Accreditation) 

https://www.iana.org/reports/2005/afrinic-report-05aug2005.pdf 



AFRINIC constitution 

https://www.afrinic.net/bylaws 



Registration Service Agreement 

https://www.afrinic.net/membership/agreements#rsa 



AFRINIC policy manual 

https://afrinic.net/policy/manual 



AFRINIC policies before the adoption of the CPM 

https://www.afrinic.net/cpm-pre 



AFRINIC PDP 

https://www.afrinic.net/policy 



Rough Consensus 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7282 



AFRINIC current policy proposals 

https://www.afrinic.net/policy/proposals 



RiRs PDPs 

https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/ 



RIR comparative policy overview 

https://www.nro.net/policy/regional/rir-comparative-policy-overview/ 

== 



Please read and process them, ask questions and find your way. 



Come build African Internet by Africans. 



As for Larus Foundation, your relationship to cloud innovation, afrinic member 
with suspicious activities, holding 6 millions of IPv4 is long established and 
discussed many times on this list. I hope the fellows would find these 
discussions in the archives. 



I call the attention of the board on the repetitive attempts of this resource 
member to hijack the PDP for its sordid intentions... the provisions of the 
bylaws and RSA must carefully be applied to recall members to acceptable code 
of conduct. 



The African Internet community as well as the global Internet community must 
pay close attention and protect the RIRs Policy development process and 
operations. 





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