Re: [Community-Discuss] AGMM Quorum issue

[Christian Bope]

Dear Dabu,

I do acknowledge the receipt of your email.

Best Regards,
Christian D. Bope, PhD
Chairman, AfriNIC Board

Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 12:03, Dabu Sifiso  a
écrit :

>
>
>
> Glad to hear this is finally moving forward and will hopefully get
> resolved.
>
> Can Mauritian court act fast enough to process this type of request so
> that the AGMM can be call on time for the next meeting in Tunis?
> Or is the plan to have the AGMM held somewhere else once the court has
> sorted out the details?
>
>
>
> 25.09.2018, 02:36, "Bope Christian" :
> > Dear AfriNIC members and community,
> >
> > The AfriNIC Bylaws, article 12.10(ii), gives the requirements for a
> quorum an of AGMM.  The requirements are:
> >
> > 12.10(ii) The quorum for an Annual General Member meeting shall be
> composed of minimum of ten (10) members in person comprising:
> > a)Four (4) Directors elected to represent a region;
> > b)One (1) Director elected on a non-regional criterion; and
> > c)Five (5) Resource Members.
> >
> > On 29 June 2018, the Chair of the Board communicated to AfriNIC
> community at Large their intention to approach the court to call an AGMM ,
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2018-June/002510.html
> .
> >
> > The AfriNIC Board has resolved to use the provision under article 118 of
> the Mauritius Companies Act and approach the Court to have the AGMM called.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Christian D. Bope, PhD
> > Chairman, AfriNIC Board
> >
> > ,
> >
> > ___
> > 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] My nomination for AfriNIC Board 2017 election pending acknowledgment after 15 days

[Christian Bope]

*[Speaking as nominee for AfriNIC Board election 2017 central Africa seat4]*

Dear Nomcom Chair,


I have nominated myself for AfriNIC Board election 2017 on *21 April 2017*
respecting the process published in   http://www.afrinic.net/en/libr
ary/news/2035-afrinic-2017-board-nomination after *15 days* I have *NOT*
received any acknowledgment of my nomination from *Nomcom* neither my too
*seconder* did *NOT* received any mail from *Nomcom*.
The probability might be high that I am not the only nominee facing this
problem.

For the sake record and substantiate my concern which might be shared by
other nominees, I would like bring to your attention and members of the
community the following event.


*1.*  On *20 April 2017* I have tried to proceed [*IP: 155.69.200.X* ] with
my self-nomination as Board nominee 2017 via the link provided
https://registration.afrinic.net/events/node/3. Unfortunately the link was
not working  the problem was forwarded to *AfriNIC help-desk* and *Noncom*
[Please ref the image]

​
​
*2.* On *21 April 2017*, I have received an official apology from the
Nomcom Chair concerning the nomination link problem which was fixed.


​Furthermore, the message related to Board nomination link problem fixed
was sent to the entire community on *21 April 2017* [image].



​* 3. *After the Board link problem was fixed, I have successfully
completed on *21 April 2017 *and received the acknowledgement from the
application. [image]


​*4.* It has been *8 day* *(28 April 2017)* since I have written another
email to Nomcom asking for update or at least an acknowledgment of my
nomination, the Nomcom have promise to get back to me asp (now 8 days).
[image]


​
*5.* Today I have been waiting for *15 days* to get at least the
acknowledgement of my nomination from Nomcom.


In summary, I do understand the Nomcom will contact me and my seconders
asap since the list of the candidate should be published on *12 may 2017*.

Following all the evidence presented, considering there was technical
problem on the setting up the Board link which I have raised on *20 April
2017* and was reported fixed on *21 April 2017*,
One might understand that the reported technical Board nomination link
problem ( http://www.afrinic.net/en/library/news/2035-afrinic-2017-
board-nomination ) could be the reason of the application did not delivered
automatic acknowledge to message to the nominee after the application was
submitted.

With Best Regards,
*Christian D. Bope*
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] "Fighting Internet Shutdown" - Any Role for AFRINIC?

[Christian Bope]

Here my draft

Dear all,

I have been following this policy discussion passionately.

I do understand the need of keeping Internet up all the time knowing it's
importance for economies, educations, developpement and other.

We should engage countries using different channels such AFGWG, AU and
other multistakeholder in our community.

What this policy is trying to solve is not in AfriNIC mandate or might
serve personal interest and other interest groups not even the people's or
Community at large.

I recall during AfriNIC meeting in Mauritius last December 2016, the same
group of people claim that the Audit Policy put the organizational at  Risk
because it will revoke ressouces if Members dit not complied. Today theu
want AfriNIC to revoke ressouces.  What will the anti - shutdown  do to the
organization?

To be honest this is not solving anything instead is putting AfriNIC at
high risk and need to be withdrawn.

On 13 Apr 2017 6:19 a.m., "Omo Oaiya"  wrote:

> +1.  A practical approach that could yield good results.  Last thing we
> want Afrinic to do is to complicate the situation with empty rhetoric and
> make an already bad situation worse.
>
> Omo
>
> On 13 Apr 2017, at 12:11, Noah  wrote:
>
> Hi Seun,
>
> Indeed Tutu has raise some great pointers and in addition to your
> centiments, i  am of the view this kind of approach is more fruitful ref:
> internet shutdowns and censorship.
>
> I suppose AFRINIC has been in the past engaging governments through the
> AFGWG and i would be keep to get some insights from AFRINIC regarding the
> same.
>
> Meanwhile, could AFRINIC organise a BoF during the upcoming meeting where
> all those who will be on the ground can discuss some of these pertinent
> issues openly. We could have a panel discussion and discuss this issue way
> better.
>
> AFRINIC could also invite some of the government officials and other
> internet leaders to this kind of BoF.
>
> I believe a BoF is one way for AFRINIC to be proactive in engaging the
> wider community.
>
> Also we could get folk from countries where the internet has ever been
> disconnected including cameroon to share more ideas on how to approach this
> issue.
>
> Noah
>
>
> On 13 Apr 2017 12:24 p.m., "Seun Ojedeji"  wrote:
>
> 
>
> Dear Community,
>
> Tutu raises a critical point and I also strongly agree that we should let
> this discussion live on.
>
> AFRINIC sure presently have provided various avenues to engage government
> and as i think there seem to be a slow but steady improvement in govt
> participation. I wonder how AFRINIC can futher leverage on this to drive
> down the point about why government needs to stop considering a shutdown of
> internet or certain service as an option. May be good to hear from staff
> how participation of the AFGWG has been so far - especially to try to
> identify challenges to participation and how to resolve them.
>
> One other thing that comes to mind is whether AFRINIC can be pro-active
> instead of re-active i.e they are made aware of the planned act and issue
> strong statement against it hoping that it will get to the ears of relevant
> authorities and get them to reconsider. This may also be effective if the
> relationship between AFRINIC and the AU (and regional bodies like ECOWAS,
> EAC, COMESA etc) is strengthened as that can serve as a channel of
> communication to the respective governments.
>
> That said, I will like to pause on the role of AFRINIC as it also seem to
> me that the role of ISPs is quite critical in this. Traffic distribution
> structure/topology varies by countries hence there is some level of
> dependencies that would exist and I wonder if ISPs can leverage upon that
> as well. Also there are situations where government would ask for shutdown
> of certain services of the internet(like social media) so connectivity
> still exist to reduce the outcry, perhaps in those cases, ISPs could also
> make it clear that its either a total shutdown or nothing and then hope
> that the country's community/citizens will notice and be loud enough to get
> government to change their order.
>
> Just a few ideas i thought I should throw in here since we seem to have an
> understanding as a community that an RIR policy cannot be a way to address
> this very important issue.
>
> Regards
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Tutu Ngcaba 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear the Afrinic Ltd,
>>
>> Since you put out a statement a few days ago condemning internet shutdown
>> problem which is a serious issue.
>>
>> Can you please take this issue up and drive it. I request that the
>> Afrinic shall and should make this as an angenda topic also in meetings to
>> come.
>>
>> We should also involve all isoc chapters in all our countries.
>>
>> We can discuss the internet shutdown under the Africann and community
>> mailing list and engage all members but not through policy.
>>
>> This will make the statement the Afrinic 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

[Christian Bope]

On 12 Nov 2016 6:24 p.m., "Alan Barrett"  wrote:
>
>
> > On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:02, Owen DeLong  wrote:
> >> I am having difficulty drafting appropriate text.  One of the
difficulties is that the rough consensus requirement is in the PDP, not in
the Bylaws.
> >>
> >> My current feeling is that the Bylaws should be silent about how the
community endorses or rejects a policy, but should say what heppens is a
policy is rejected (not endorsed).  Here’s suggested text:
> >>
> >> 11.5 Endorsement of policy adopted by the Board:
> >> (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article
11.4 shall be submitted to the community for endorsement or rejection at
the next public policy meeting.
> >> (b) In the event that such a policy submitted by the Board is not
endorsed, the said policy shall not be enforced or implemented following
its non-endorsement; however, any actions taken in terms of the policy
prior to such non-endorsement shall remain valid.
> >
> > How about this:
> >
> > 11.5  Ratification of policy adopted by the Board:
> > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the provisions of Article
11.4 shall be submitted to the community for ratification at the next
public policy meeting.
> > (c) Unless the PDWG chairs determine that there is consensus by the
community to reject said policy, the policy shall remain in force or be put
in force as directed by the Board.
> >
> > Would that work?
>
> Sorry, no, that doesn’t work, because the Bylaws have no concept of a
PDWG chair or a rough consensus process.  The Bylaws say that there must be
a Policy Development Process, but give no details about how it works.  The
concept of a PDWG chair or co-chair, and the requirement for (rough)
consensus is a construct of the PDP, and can be changed by adopting a new
version of the PDP.  It would not be appropriate for the Bylaws to rely on
something that can be changed outside the Bylaws.
>
> Alan Barrett

[Speaking on my own capacity.]

As stated in my previous post related to item 13.
There are 2 key element we should all keep in mind and maintain.
1. PDP guidelines shall be updated to describe how Board can adopt a policy.
2. Board adopted policy must be ratified by the community. If not it is
rejected.

Regards

>
>
> ___
> 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] Bylaws changes

[Christian Bope]

[Speaking on my own capacity]

I would have loved to not get involved in this discussion about Board and
PDP. But I think it is important to consider keeping the PDP, Buttom-up,
Community Driven and Consensus based. And any policy adopted by the Board
if need be shall go to the PDP for consideration.

Regards,
Bope

2016-11-09 21:32 GMT+08:00 Alan Barrett :

>
> > On 9 Nov 2016, at 18:36, ALAIN AINA  wrote:
> >
> > What i am sensing here is Board being involved in the “rough consensus”
> process of the PDPWG  which is different from board adopting its own
> policies which shall be submitted to the community for endorsement.
> >
> > Ok.  In case of deadlock as described above and if the board made the
> decision over  policy proposals being discussed, why bring the  adopted
> policy back to the same community for endorsement ?
>
> There are two ways to make policy:
>
> The normal way: Policy is made by the community and ratified by the Board.
> See Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3, and the PDP.
>
> The unusual way: Policy is made by the Board and endorsed by the
> community.  See Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5.
>
> The changes under discussion do not affect the normal process (PDP, and
> Bylaws 11.2 and 11.3).  The changes under discussion are intended to
> prevent the Board from abusing the unusual process (Bylaws 11.4 and 11.5).
>
> My example (not quoted) was  intended to illustrate why it is sometimes a
> good idea to let the Baord adopt policies that do not reach rough consensus.
>
>
> 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] [members-discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes

[Christian Bope]

On 17 Sep 2016 12:58 a.m., "Jackson Muthili"  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Bope Domilongo Christian
>  wrote:
> > Dear CEO,
> >
> > Thank you for sharing the Bylaws change working document  with the
> > community.
> >
> > After reading the document, I have two quick question before going to
the
> > substance of the changes.
> > 1.  How the decisions was made for the  “No consensus” /  “no
objections”?
> >
> > 2. I remember  that during the discussions, other propositions  of
amendment
> > were made in addition to the points in your discussion document. Have
these
> > points been considered ?
>
> In the spirit of collaboration and moving forward, can you highlight
> those propositions that were discussed and have been omitted? That way
> your input will actually be constructive

I would love to do that. Unfortunately I was not consolidated the comment.

Or the easiest way maybe if it is possible the CEO can share as well the
consolidated document which include all the comment.

The time consuming approach is for me going to the mailing archive that
will take time.

Regards,
Bope
>
> ___
> 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