Re: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

[Saul Stein]

Hi Noah,
While sharing emails like this is interesting, I’d suggest leaving the emotion 
and profanity out of the email. It will add to your credibility and stop people 
just saying, there he goes on a rant…

The reality as we all know is that anyone in Africa can become a member of 
AFRINIC and micro membership fess are only $1000 – can you can get a /23, not 
just a /24.

Since the internet is already a global eco system where everyone needs to work 
together, there are already organisations like ISOC etc  to who do promote this 
freedom they speak of.

Education is key, we all know this.



From: Noah 
Sent: Wednesday, 08 December 2021 22:28
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: [Community-Discuss] The NRS at it again with endless lobbying

Folks,

Are most of you still being coerced by the Lu Heng's wannabe RIR the NRS to 
join them.

I mean, reading the bullshit in the below email from one of the NRS 
representatives, a one Fiona Mwangi, clearly shows that Lu Heng is stopping at 
nothing to pretend and fake it that he has legitimate customers in the region 
by dashing out free /24's and some 1 month free VPS access and free Cloud 
services.

Is this how Lu Heng intends to justify that CIL has real end-users in the 
AFRINIC service region because that would be broad day light deceit and 
dishonesty.

Who the heck provides free /24 IPv4 block, free VPS and free Cloud Services.

Talk of bullshit and hamburg.

Cheers,
Noah


From: Fiona Nyawira Mwangi mailto:f.mwa...@nrs.help>>
Subject: Re: Become members of Number Resource Society
Dear Sir,
I am Fiona  from the Number Resources Society (NRS). The NRS is a gathering of  
members who have the goal of preserving the stability of the internet. IP 
addresses are one of the most important resources for Internet related 
businesses.
The NRS’s core beliefs and values are an unlimited, unrestricted, and united 
Internet that is based on a global free market and enterprise based on the 
principles of transparency and accountability. The establishment of the Society 
is an advocacy of the Internet’s stability, which can only be achieved by 
individuals, private companies, and ISPs having freedom in managing their 
networks and recognizing the Internet as one universal resource comprised of 
many individual networks each operated by and according to the wishes of its 
own management.
With this, we are inviting your company to become part of the NRS and join us 
in this noble cause of protecting the internet. Through your participation, we 
are one step closer to achieving our goal of improving the status quo of the 
Internet.
Your membership to the NRS will entitle you to our membership benefits, 
provided by NRS contributors:
- /24 IPv4 address lease for your organization with lease fee waived provided 
by one of our NRS contributor (terms and conditions apply, including all RIR 
policy requirements and provider's accept use policy). Currently, /24 IP 
addresses are pegged at a price of USD$2,500 annually.
-Free cloud space for your organization through another of our NRS contributors.
-One month free VPS from one our NRS contributors.
-A vast networking platform of various stakeholders, telecommunication and IT 
companies, in addition to Internet Governance training and workshops.
Should you have any questions, or want to discuss more details, please do not 
hesitate to contact +254720260410  and visit our website : 
www.nrs.help
I am hoping for your positive response regarding this proposal.
Best regards,
Fiona Mwangi.

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: AFRINIC-31 Meeting

[Saul Stein]

Yip, me too and at some interesting old staff members addresses. Which make 
me curious as to what database they have mined. I don’t think it’s AFRINIC 
db. One email that was used was never registered with AFRINIC as far as I 
can remember…





From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 15 November 2019 11:24 AM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; 
members-disc...@afrinic.net
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Fwd: AFRINIC-31 Meeting



Not sure if anyone else has received these...

I am probably old school, but these kinds of things leave a bad taste in my 
mouth.

Mark.


 Forwarded Message  


Subject:

AFRINIC-31 Meeting


Date:

Fri, 15 Nov 2019 09:18:52 +


From:

Lena AFRINIC   


To:

mark.ti...@seacom.mu 



  

  
 
Greetings,



Hope this email finds you well!

I'm representing IPv4 Services, a registered broker in RIPE, ARIN and APNIC. 
We are attending at AFRINIC 31 in Luanda, Angola, and would be a pleasure to 
meet people that are open to a potential collaboration regarding IPv4 
resources.

We are planning to establish new connections and find AFRINIC based business 
partners for selling/leasing/purchase of IPv4 addresses.

NOTE - if you are interested please feel free to contact me with any 
questions.



See you at the event.



--

Kind regards,

Elena Dontu



lena.ipv4 (Skype)

LenaIPv4 (WeChat)

+37360820413 (WhatsApp)

web: ipv4services.com



  _

You received this email because you subscribed at Ripe Training Courses

 

 
Отписаться



__ ESET Mail Security warning, version of virus signature database 
20348 (20191114) __

Warning, ESET Mail Security could not check this message:

- too many archives embedded
» MIME - too many archives embedded
part001.txt - is OK


http://www.eset.com

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Announcement for Final Candidate Slate for Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee

[Saul Stein]

hi

I agree with Owen:



the candidate list that AFRINIC has sent out for the new board in the 
upcoming elections in two weeks: 
 
https://afrinic.net/candidate-slate-board-election-2019



Besides the fact that we are meant to have the list 30 days before the AGMM, 
there is are some very concerning issues:

1)   There is only one candidate for the southern region

2)   He has been suspended from his day job 
 
https://www.itweb.co.za/content/Olx4z7kgwwx756km as the CEO of ZADNA, 
basically the organisation that controls domains in .za. read the article 
and draw your own conclusions as to what is going on.

3)   He is the only candidate that the NOMCOM have advertised

4)   The NOMCOM have no requirement (my understanding) to say of there 
were any other candidates.

5)   There is no longer an option to vote “none of the above”, 
effectively giving the NOMCOM the opportunity to select Directors without 
the need for an election. (what are they supposed to do if there is only one 
volunteer? Catch 22, we need to be able to vote “none of the above”)

6)   From being suspended from his day job he now becomes a director of 
the debatably the most important internet organisation in Africa.



Yes there is also only one candidate for the Eastern Africa as well. Again, 
without the “none of the above” options and only 1 candidate, NOMCOM elects 
the Board of Directors.



I understand the issue on “none of the above” voting option when there are 
more than 1 candidate, but when there is only one candidate, not having it, 
if you have an unsuitable person standing alone, there is no way to keep him 
out.



This makes no sense at all.



Saul





From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: 04 June 2019 01:33 AM
To: AFRINIC Communication 
Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Announcement for Final Candidate Slate for 
Open Seat on AFRINIC Governance Committee



Given that the none-of-the-above option has been removed from AfriNIC 
elections, should not the NomCom have a mandate to seek at least two 
candidates for any position before declaring a final slate?



Otherwise, this basically gives the NomCom the authority to appoint members 
of the governance committee (and other bodies such as the board).



Owen







On Jun 3, 2019, at 12:44 , AFRINIC Communication < 
 comm-annou...@afrinic.net> wrote:



Dear colleagues,

On behalf of the NomCom2019, AFRINIC is pleased to announce the following 
final candidate slate for the open seat on the AFRINIC Governance Committee 
elections:

Governance Committee


• Ntumba Kayemba

Full candidate information has been published at 
 
https://afrinic.net/candidate-slate-governance-committee-election-2019

The community (and members) are hereby invited to view candidate details and 
express any comments about the suitability of the candidates for the 
Governance committee position using the comment section at the URLs above.
Election will be held during the Annual General Members' Meeting (AGMM) to 
be held in Kampala on 20 June 2019.
More information is available at:   
https://afrinic.net/election-process

For any queries or clarification, please contact the nominations committee 
by email to nomcom2019[at]  afrinic.net

….

Annonce des candidats pour l'election au comité de gouvernance

Au nom du Nomcom 2019, AFRINIC a le plaisir d’annoncer la liste finale des 
candidats pour election au sein du comité de gouvernance.

Comité de gouvernance

• Ntumba Kayemba

Plus d’informations sur les candidats sont publiées ici: 
 
https://www.afrinic.net/candidate-slate-governance-committee-election-2019

La communauté (et les membres) sont invités à voir les détails des candidats 
et à formuler des commentaires sur les qualités personnelles des candidats 
pour le poste au comité de gouvernance en utilisant la section des 
commentaires sur les URL ci-dessus.

L'élection aura lieu lors de l'Assemblée générale annuelle des membres 
(AGMM) qui se tiendra à Kampala le 20 juin 2019.

Plus d'informations sont disponibles sur: 
 https://afrinic.net/election-process

Pour toute question ou clarification, veuillez contacter le comité de 
nomination par courriel à nomcom2019 [at]   afrinic.net

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Gratitude (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

Hi All,



Reading from the minutes:



The CEO highlighted that the document that was shared on the community 
mailing list was a public document, a public document that was received 
directly from the Court and not subject to NDA and privilege, and was not 
received in virtue of the employment at AFRINIC but received from the Court 
registry. The CEO further affirmed that it was important and for the best 
interest of the company to share the document to the community

Where is the conflict of interest?



The Chair pointed out that on the 9 February, he shared an email that he 
wanted to hear the views of the Board before sharing the document to the 
community.

The community had been calling for this information repeatedly. If the CEO 
was not being supported by the Board in the daily operation of the 
organisation, that is huge issue. There have been numerous instances where 
the board has failed to communicate with it members (those very people to 
whom the board is accountable and put the board there in the first place.)



With regards to the Agenda Items under discussion, VM pointed out that 
matter of governance and sharing with the members should be under the 
responsibility of the Board. The Board should have agreed as a whole to 
release the document.

Sadly they were asked but the members and didn’t and so someone placed a 
public document in a location so that those interested could view it.



Legal counsel had in a number of occasions highlighted that the judgment was 
a publicly accessible document hence there was no reason to delay its 
publication.

Since legal counsel had advised, why did the board still not comply?



Let’s add this current issue of a director that has been suspended from his 
day job. While I am not going to jump to conclusions as to why (that is not 
for us to judge), whatever happen is serious enough to suspend him. Good 
governance and integrity would be for him to temporarily remove himself from 
all decision making from other entities as well to prevent inference and 
possible misconduct. Would you go to an accountant for private work while he 
has been suspended from his day job? The board knew about this and failed to 
act.



As a general rule, where there is smoke there is fire. People only hide 
things where there are things to hide. We are a community based 
organisation. There is very little data that needs redacting in the minutes 
in general. Communication should be forthcoming and open!



All these issues really make one think about the objectives of the board!







From: Wayne Diamond [mailto:wa...@domains.co.za]
Sent: 31 May 2019 11:55 AM
To: Alan Levin ; S. Moonesamy 
Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Gratitude (off-topic)



Is this not the time for a vote of no confidence in the chairman / some of 
the board?



Wayne











From: Alan Levin mailto:alanle...@gmail.com> >
Sent: 31 May 2019 11:29 AM
To: S. Moonesamy mailto:sm...@afrinic.net> >
Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Gratitude (off-topic)



Dear S.



The situation is apalling! The Southern rep is currently suspended from his 
job we still do not know why  the rest of the board appears to have 
jointly angered the CEO into resignation... I am surprised you have not 
resigned yet why are you still there?



Alan



On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 20:40, S. Moonesamy mailto:sm%2...@afrinic.net> > wrote:

Dear Andrew,
At 10:13 AM 30-05-2019, Andrew Alston wrote:
>Is the board prepared to share the full unredacted accountability
>assessment with the community  if it has not already been done (I
>don't recall it have being done so)

Thank you for contacting me.  In my opinion, it may possible to bring
the request to the attention of the Board as there was a decision
about requests from Resource Members in 2017.  I don't know what the
Board will decide as a Board is usually more than one member's opinion.

There is a mention of a public summary in the minutes of May 2016.  I
found the following: http://r.elandsys.com/r/40408

Regards,
S. Moonesamy


___
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] 06 April 2019 RPKI incident - Postmortem report

[Saul Stein]

Owen,



The issue I am referring to is another issue – I was told it was Javascript 
related.

It was December 2018 – known issue for 3 weeks.



I think that Ben has the right idea – we need to move this to the RPKI list 
and manage expectations.



Cheers

Saul



From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: 10 April 2019 03:05 PM
To: Noah 
Cc: Saul Stein ; General Discussions of AFRINIC 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] 06 April 2019 RPKI incident - Postmortem 
report







The last issue I had, when no ROAs could be added, deleted etc, it was 
admitted that the issue was known about for over two weeks without anything 
on the announce list or being fixed! After escalation to the CEO and others 
it was fixed in a couple of hours!



I believe that is a mischaracterization of what happened…



An alert that the issue was pending was not acted upon for two weeks before 
the issue started. The issue was resolved within hours of when the issue 
started, if I understood the postmortem correctly.



Owen





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

Re: [Community-Discuss] 06 April 2019 RPKI incident - Postmortem report

[Saul Stein]

Agreed.



There is a bigger issue at stake here: I have yet to see any evidence that 
AFRINIC takes RPKI seriously.

The last issue I had, when no ROAs could be added, deleted etc, it was 
admitted that the issue was known about for over two weeks without anything 
on the announce list or being fixed! After escalation to the CEO and others 
it was fixed in a couple of hours!



RPKI is serious and needs to be taken seriously. We can’t continuously be 
having issues with it. It  is like customs at immigration being offline!



Cheers

Saul



From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.ti...@seacom.mu]
Sent: 10 April 2019 08:32 AM
To: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] 06 April 2019 RPKI incident - Postmortem 
report



Thanks, Cedrick.

A question that is, perhaps, obvious... are you able to take the human 
component out of this? If 2 reminders were not enough to get the humans to 
act, I'm not sure the current methodology is sustainable.

Mark.

On 8/Apr/19 17:46, Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet wrote:

Dear AFRINIC community,



Find below postmortem report on the incident that happen on 06 April 2019.



The AFRINIC RPKI engine has an offline part that has to be renewed on a 
monthly bases. The process is known, documented and automated reminders set. 
The system is set to send 2 reminders each month, one 15 days prior to the 
expiry date and the second one 7 days before expiry. On the 2nd half of 
March, the monitoring system sent a reminder to perform the offline refresh 
but this was not acted upon.





On Saturday 06 April 2019,  Certificate revocation List (CRL) and the 
manifest file of AFRINIC RPKI repository expired (around 07:24AM UTC). Our 
monitoring system picked this up. The immediate action was to generate new 
certificates and manifest file and upload them onto RPKI engine system.



The failure was as a result of human error, no changes were made on the 
system but we have taken additional steps to the existing process to ensure 
that this does not happen again. We do acknowledge that it is unacceptable 
to have such a failure with critical infrastructure and necessary done in 
this regard.





We do apologize for the inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience 
in this regard.

-- 
___
Cedrick Adrien Mbeyet
Infrastructure Unit Manager, AFRINIC Ltd.
t:  +230 403 5100 / 403 5115 | f: +230 466 6758 | tt: @afrinic | w: 
www.afrinic.net 
facebook.com/afrinic | flickr.com/afrinic | youtube.com/afrinicmedia
__




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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -

[Saul Stein]

Hi



Instead of this mudslinging match / personal witch hunt, which has no place 
on this (or any) mailing list and clogging up our inboxes, perhaps this 
energy could be better put to addressing the communities concerns about this 
proposal.



Saul





From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net]
Sent: 18 December 2018 07:58 AM
To: Owen DeLong 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to 
Meeting -





On 15 Dec 2018, at 03:39, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com> > wrote:



My first work with Larus began shortly before the Dakar meeting last June. 
You can review the record for yourself, you will see that I have expressed 
objection to every version of the review policy since its inception well 
before the Dakar meeting and well before my having any connection whatsoever 
to Larus.



Owen,



Your spirited defence of Larus and the revelation that you have been 
employed by same organisation piqued my interest so I reviewed the record as 
you suggested.



Anyone is allowed to change their minds.  The records show that you 
initially supported the proposal,  changed your position along the line, and 
became vehemently opposed to it thereafter.



Here is what I found in the archives:


18 May 2016 - v1.0 of the proposal was submitted

24 May 2016 - You point to ARIN review policy when there are comments about 
implementation impact on AFRINIC and queries if any other RIR had done this 
before.




On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Owen DeLong https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> > wrote:

>
> On May 23, 2016, at 11:30 , Benjamin Eshun   > wrote:
>
> Comments are in line
>
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Nishal Goburdhan <
> nishal at controlfreak.co.za 
>  > wrote:
>
> ok, so using that logic, can is there another RIR that has successfully
>> shown, how this can be done?  the case across the world, seems to be that
>> this is too much effort, for too little gain.  so, honestly, unless there’s
>> some magician that can show how/why this is likely to be different in
>> africa, it’s reasonable to assume that this is also going to be the case
>> here.
>> as a paying member, i want afrinic - using its limited resources - to
>> prioritise that, which will take us forward.
>>
>
> I refer you to ARIN NRPM section 12.
>
> Owen

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005484.html



At this time, you appear to be positively disposed to the proposal and I 
find email below where you actually express your support when there seems to 
be a misunderstanding of your “IPv4 is dead” claim.



>From the text, it even seems that I may have missed other mails supporting 
for the policy.



> On Jun 1, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Owen DeLong   > wrote:
>
>
> I’ve already expressed support for this policy. I’ve already expressed 
> support for keeping AfriNIC resources for Africa.
>
> I’ve done so on numerous occasions.
>
> So I am really not sure what point you are trying to make to me.
>

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2016/005530.html



Fast-forward a year later to July 2017, by which time the proposal has 
reached last call for the first time.  It is now at v3.0 and the tone of 
your messages begin to change up to the point that I feel you are 
obstructing the Co-chairs and adding to the confusion.

On 10 July 2017 at 23:18, Owen DeLong https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> > wrote:

> Sami,
>
> The final legal feedback notwithstanding, I think there has been more than
> enough negative feedback in this last call to make it quite clear that 
> this
> policy does NOT have consensus at this time and I urge the co-chairs to
> remand it to the authors and the list for further refinement or 
> abandonment
> rather than leaving it in last call status. There is no reason for last
> call to be maintained beyond the point where clearly the policy has no
> consensus as is and will need substantial revision. It only confuses the
> community.
>
> Owen
>

https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2017/007169.html



By now, you are very vocal and have issues with the proposal you had 
previously supported and improved with community input to reach last call at 
v3.0.   You become a champion for its opposition.



On 11 Jul 2017, at 18:39, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com> > wrote:



I am not opposed to the concept of resource reviews… In fact, the policy in 
section 12 of the ARIN NRPM to which you refer below was originally proposed 
and authored by yours truly and subsequently modified by a group of people 
prior to becoming ARIN policy.



I fully support the idea, the concept, and a proper implementation.



However, the dichotomy between the above idea of a proper implementation and 
what is proposed in AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 is so severe that many 
people have raised substantive 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

Hi Alan,
>We specified such a system last year, and started implementing it earlier 
>this year.  I can’t give a commitment for when it will be finished, but the 
>target is for late Q3 2018.
Erm, without a committed time frame, there is no end goal. Is the end of Q3 
the deadline? A moving deadline means things never get completed.

Looking forward to hearing about its completion and a link to see a dash 
board of open tickets, tickets out of SLA - the standard stuff.

Thanks
Saul


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

So here are 3 tickets confirming what Andrew is going on about. 

Please can we get commitments by when the ticket system will be modified
to be to provide management overview and insight or a new system spec'd

-Original Message-
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+afri...@elandsys.com] 
Sent: 26 June 2018 08:51 AM
To: Saul Stein ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

Hi Saul,
At 11:18 PM 25-06-2018, Saul Stein wrote:
>Another ticket provided to me : [AFRINIC #608664]

Thanks.

The response time for the previous ticket was not within the two-day limit
which is stated in the service level commitment.

It is likely that there are at least two issues:

   (a) The response time for requests for allocations of IP address space
is
   taking too long.

   (b) The current reporting (statistics) does not provide clear
information to
   identify how many tickets are not within the two-day service level
   commitment.

I will follow up on members-discuss mailing list.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

Hi, 
Another ticket provided to me : [AFRINIC #608664]

Saul


-Original Message-
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+afri...@elandsys.com] 
Sent: 21 June 2018 05:44 PM
To: Saul Stein ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

Hi Saul,
At 06:17 AM 21-06-2018, Saul Stein wrote:
>This should all be in your ticketing system. Any respectable ticketing 
>system should be able to report on calls that have taken longer than 3 
>days to resolve.
>I could ask the South African ISPs to produce this list, however, and 
>this is becoming the issue, what's the point? We, as a membership base 
>have been complaining about this on the lists for some time and at the
AGMMs.

The statistics [1] which I have access to does not show the number of
tickets which took longer than three days to resolve.  I need some
information to be able to make an internal request.  I am not asking for
an exhaustive list.  As an example, Mr Beneke provided a data point [2].
The information is useful to me.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/rt-stats
2.
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2018-June/002460.htm
l 


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Raising concerns

[Saul Stein]

Hi Alan,
I must be honest, those surveys are really a waste of time and don't ask any 
relevant or meaningful feedback.
I have very rarely had a ticket go well or timeously and the surveys have 
never facilitated the appropriate response.
I have tried addressing it in the past, but I don’t think it went anywhere.

Saul


-Original Message-
From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barr...@afrinic.net]
Sent: 22 June 2018 10:28 AM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Raising concerns

Dear Andrew,

You may have some legitimate questions or concerns, but the way you are 
raising them is extremely destructive to staff morale.  Staff watch this 
mailing list and see the organisation being attacked, or their team being 
attacked.  Also, I can’t reasonably extract questions from the deluge of 
many email messages per day.

Please use a more appropriate channel for raising concerns.  Here are some 
options:

* When a ticket is closed, the person who opened the ticket is sent a link 
to a satisfaction survey.

* When you are dissatisfied with service, you can send a message to 
.

* If you have questions or concerns that you would like the CEO to deal 
with, please send them to .

* If you have questions or concerns that you would like the Board to deal 
with, please send them to 

Alan Barrett
CEO, AFRINIC


___
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] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

Hi SM, 
Here is a ticket from another ISP:

Ticket:  #437176 

Applied on the 15/08/2016, only received the invoice for the allocation on
09/09/2016 and received the allocation on 12/09/2019  
i.e 29 days from date of application to actually receiving the allocation.

All this just to add a /19 to our other allocation of a /22.

As mentioned:
a) the ticketing system should be able to supply this information
b) people tend to move on from bad experiences and don't hang onto the
information. Luckily it is not something that we have to do on a daily
basis.

Saul

-Original Message-
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+afri...@elandsys.com] 
Sent: 21 June 2018 05:44 PM
To: Saul Stein ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

Hi Saul,
At 06:17 AM 21-06-2018, Saul Stein wrote:
>This should all be in your ticketing system. Any respectable ticketing 
>system should be able to report on calls that have taken longer than 3 
>days to resolve.
>I could ask the South African ISPs to produce this list, however, and 
>this is becoming the issue, what's the point? We, as a membership base 
>have been complaining about this on the lists for some time and at the
AGMMs.

The statistics [1] which I have access to does not show the number of
tickets which took longer than three days to resolve.  I need some
information to be able to make an internal request.  I am not asking for
an exhaustive list.  As an example, Mr Beneke provided a data point [2].
The information is useful to me.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. https://www.afrinic.net/en/services/statistics/rt-stats
2.
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/2018-June/002460.htm
l 


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

William,

Quite simply: we have a regional RIR and it should be efficient and serve 
the region.



If we all went elsewhere,

a)  What would the purpose be of AFRINICs existence

b)  how would AFRINIC get its funding?



What I don’t understand is why people want to run AFRINIC differently to the 
way you run your own business?



Just because uncomfortable questions are being asked, they get ignored and 
then then those that don’t like them ask for those people to leave the 
organisation… doesn’t make sense to me.



From: William Ametozion [mailto:wametoz...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 June 2018 07:32 PM
To: Saul Stein 
Cc: S Moonesamy ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)



Hi Saul,

> As mentioned, some gave up and went to RIPE - they won't have kept their 
> ticket numbers...

Since there is a precedence that some South African ISPs are going to RIPE, 
why not encourage your friend Andrew Alston to follow their example and join 
RIPE and stop being disruptive in AfriNIC Community?

William A.

On Jun 21, 2018 13:19, "Saul Stein" mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za> > wrote:

Dear SM,
This should all be in your ticketing system. Any respectable ticketing
system should be able to report on calls that have taken longer than 3
days to resolve.
I could ask the South African ISPs to produce this list, however, and this
is becoming the issue, what's the point? We, as a membership base have
been complaining about this on the lists for some time and at the AGMMs.

People don't have the time to document every little thing that happens -
it takes time away from them doing what they need to do to make the
companies they work for functional.
As mentioned, some gave up and went to RIPE - they won't have kept their
ticket numbers...

Saul


-Original Message-
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+afri...@elandsys.com 
<mailto:sm%2bafri...@elandsys.com> ]
Sent: 21 June 2018 02:21 PM
To: Saul Stein mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za> >; 
community-discuss@afrinic.net <mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>
Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

Hi Saul,
At 03:44 AM 21-06-2018, Saul Stein wrote:
>Every ISP that I have spoken to complains about the service levels to
>the point that one or two actually got space from RIPE.

Can you please get me the ticket numbers, the dates of the complaints and
the dates the complaints were resolved (if applicable)?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net <mailto: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] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

William,

Quite simply: we have a regional RIR and it should be efficient and serve 
the region.



If we all went elsewhere,

a)  What would the purpose be of AFRINICs existence

b)  how would AFRINIC get its funding?



What I don’t understand is why people want to run AFRINIC differently to the 
way you run your own business?



Just because uncomfortable questions are being asked, they get ignored and 
then then those that don’t like them ask for those people to leave the 
organisation… doesn’t make sense to me.



From: William Ametozion [mailto:wametoz...@gmail.com]
Sent: 21 June 2018 07:32 PM
To: Saul Stein 
Cc: S Moonesamy ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)



Hi Saul,

> As mentioned, some gave up and went to RIPE - they won't have kept their 
> ticket numbers...

Since there is a precedence that some South African ISPs are going to RIPE, 
why not encourage your friend Andrew Alston to follow their example and join 
RIPE and stop being disruptive in AfriNIC Community?

William A.

On Jun 21, 2018 13:19, "Saul Stein" mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za> > wrote:

Dear SM,
This should all be in your ticketing system. Any respectable ticketing
system should be able to report on calls that have taken longer than 3
days to resolve.
I could ask the South African ISPs to produce this list, however, and this
is becoming the issue, what's the point? We, as a membership base have
been complaining about this on the lists for some time and at the AGMMs.

People don't have the time to document every little thing that happens -
it takes time away from them doing what they need to do to make the
companies they work for functional.
As mentioned, some gave up and went to RIPE - they won't have kept their
ticket numbers...

Saul


-Original Message-
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+afri...@elandsys.com 
<mailto:sm%2bafri...@elandsys.com> ]
Sent: 21 June 2018 02:21 PM
To: Saul Stein mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za> >; 
community-discuss@afrinic.net <mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>
Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

Hi Saul,
At 03:44 AM 21-06-2018, Saul Stein wrote:
>Every ISP that I have spoken to complains about the service levels to
>the point that one or two actually got space from RIPE.

Can you please get me the ticket numbers, the dates of the complaints and
the dates the complaints were resolved (if applicable)?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy


___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net <mailto: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] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

Dear SM, 
This should all be in your ticketing system. Any respectable ticketing
system should be able to report on calls that have taken longer than 3
days to resolve.
I could ask the South African ISPs to produce this list, however, and this
is becoming the issue, what's the point? We, as a membership base have
been complaining about this on the lists for some time and at the AGMMs.

People don't have the time to document every little thing that happens -
it takes time away from them doing what they need to do to make the
companies they work for functional.
As mentioned, some gave up and went to RIPE - they won't have kept their
ticket numbers...

Saul


-Original Message-
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+afri...@elandsys.com] 
Sent: 21 June 2018 02:21 PM
To: Saul Stein ; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: RE: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

Hi Saul,
At 03:44 AM 21-06-2018, Saul Stein wrote:
>Every ISP that I have spoken to complains about the service levels to 
>the point that one or two actually got space from RIPE.

Can you please get me the ticket numbers, the dates of the complaints and
the dates the complaints were resolved (if applicable)?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy 


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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting (off-topic)

[Saul Stein]

>Is there any issue with the service level [1]?

Every ISP that I have spoken to complains about the service levels to the
point that one or two actually got space from RIPE.

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] [Spam] Re: [Board-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting

[Saul Stein]

Actually these questions and answers are rather interesting. We weren’t 
allowed to ask them at the AGMM, so I guess now is the time.



I am intrigued to see how much money is given to organisations that don’t 
seem to have accountability what they get.





From: Omo Oaiya [mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net]
Sent: 19 June 2018 04:11 PM
To: Andrew Alston 
Cc: community-discuss@afrinic.net; AFRINIC Board of Directors' List 

Subject: [Spam] Re: [Community-Discuss] [Board-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting



Andrew,



I try to avoid you so I don’t get drawn into time-wasting discussions.   I 
guess I am reacting to your flippant disregard for AFRINIC origins and your 
attempt to disparage those that have worked to get us here.



On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:51, Andrew Alston mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> > wrote:



Omo,



As a member that contributes fees to the organisation – at a rate of almost 
$50k a year – I have every single right in the world – to understand how 
that money is being spent.  And I will continue to ask – especially when an 
event is being held that is being paid for that is not on any event 
calendar.





I have not suggested you do not have the right to question.  I have queried 
their nature and more importantly the availability of the CEO to respond 
question by question.





While I realize that the organisation you work for – got their space on the 
back of a grant and didn’t even pay the allocation fee or the first few 
years of having it – and you are a small member – so its tiny amounts of 
money – others of us – actually would like to know where our cash is being 
spent to guide other decisions.





 I am a small member who does not expect this level of micromanagement from 
a CEO.





Andrew





From: Omo Oaiya [  mailto:omo.oa...@wacren.net]
Sent: 19 June 2018 16:47
To:   community-discuss@afrinic.net; 
AFRINIC Board of Directors' List <  
bo...@afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [Board-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting



This line of questioning is unnecessary and unbecoming.   I am surprised the 
CEO has time to respond to this.



Omo



On 19 Jun 2018, at 14:40, Andrew Alston < 
 andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> 
wrote:



Sorry,



Last question – why is this event not on the AFRINIC Event calendar (or the 
ISOC event calendar)



Andrew





From: Alan Barrett [  
mailto:alan.barr...@afrinic.net]
Sent: 19 June 2018 16:31
To:   community-discuss@afrinic.net
Cc: AFRINIC Board of Directors' List <  
bo...@afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [Board-Discuss] Cotonou Meeting





> On 19 Jun 2018, at 17:21, Andrew Alston < 
>  andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> 
> wrote:
>
> Alan,
>
> Does this include the cocktail sponsorship

The sponsorship is a lump sum. There is no additional or separate amount for 
a cocktail.

> – if it does – can we calculate as follows based on previous trips to work 
> out the approximate cost of attendance:
>
> Average cost per person in flights (based on previous financials) - 
> $2049.50
> Sponsorship $3000
> Accommodation while there since it’s a 2 day event - $500 odd dollars per 
> person (conservatively)
> 5 total people
>
> Cost to the membership for this – roughly $16k?

That sounds plausible, though it's more likely to be 4 people, not 5.

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] Call for comments on proposed changes to AFRINIC fees

[Saul Stein]

Sorry, just to add, I think its great to see a more linear pricing structure 
which will help members grow!



From: Saul Stein [mailto:s...@enetworks.co.za]
Sent: 25 May 2018 12:16 PM
To: Bope Christian <christianb...@gmail.com>; community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for comments on proposed changes to 
AFRINIC fees



Hi

Just a few pointers:



The document is slightly confusing as it discusses points without mentioning 
details, only to repeat everything with detail later on.



2.4 end users vs LIRs: difference ratio is contradictory. There should not 
be a difference in fee structure between end users and LIRs – the resource 
the use is identical.



2.5 one can’t expect the large members to cover the smaller ones.



2.6 ASN only fees, $200 for end users and LIRs – again, there is no 
difference between the entities and $1400 for just an ASN is crazy.



2.8 no mention of the allocation or assignment fee, but repeated in 3.3.2



3.3.1 please explain the difference in allocation process between LIRs and 
end users. Again, it’s the same work and so should carry the same fees. 
(same as for resources – same resources, should be the same fees)

3.5.1 please define per block. Is that $500 per allocation or per /24. 
Assuming is per allocation, this should be a sliding scale.



“Where transfers are due to mergers, acquisitions, or name changes, and 
where there is a

requirement for AFRINIC to evaluate the recipient organisation’s compliance 
with policy:

The fees under “Other transfers” will apply.”



This seems a contradiction.as :Other Transfers seems to deal with the same 
things.



3.5.2 $1000 for internal transfers is ludicrous.



3.6.3“For the purposes of this discount, critical infrastructure is as 
defined by any policy that specifically deals with critical infrastructure.”

That is not a definition



What category do INXes fall into?





From: Bope Christian [mailto:christianb...@gmail.com]
Sent: 24 May 2018 06:10 PM
To: community-discuss@afrinic.net <mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net>
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Call for comments on proposed changes to 
AFRINIC fees



Dear AFRINIC members and community,



The AFRINIC Board constituted a Fee Review Committee in 2017 to consider 
changes to AFRINIC’s fee structure.  The committee presented a report to the 
Board on 9 May 2018, with updates on 23 May 2018.  The report is published 
at < <https://afrinic.net/images/doc/fees-proposal-afrinic-20180523.pdf> 
https://afrinic.net/images/doc/fees-proposal-afrinic-20180523.pdf>.  A 
calculator that shows both existing and proposed fees is available at < 
<https://preview.afrinic.net/membership-cost#calculator> 
https://preview.afrinic.net/membership-cost#calculator>.



In terms of Article 4.2(ii) of the AFRINIC Bylaws, the Board invites 
comments on the proposed new fees for a period of 60 days.  Comments should 
be sent to the community-discuss at afrinic.net <http://afrinic.net> 
mailing list, no later than 25 July 2018.



Best Regards,

Christian D. Bope, Ph.D

Chairman, AFRINIC Board









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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Call for comments on proposed changes to AFRINIC fees

[Saul Stein]

Hi

Just a few pointers:



The document is slightly confusing as it discusses points without mentioning 
details, only to repeat everything with detail later on.



2.4 end users vs LIRs: difference ratio is contradictory. There should not 
be a difference in fee structure between end users and LIRs – the resource 
the use is identical.



2.5 one can’t expect the large members to cover the smaller ones.



2.6 ASN only fees, $200 for end users and LIRs – again, there is no 
difference between the entities and $1400 for just an ASN is crazy.



2.8 no mention of the allocation or assignment fee, but repeated in 3.3.2



3.3.1 please explain the difference in allocation process between LIRs and 
end users. Again, it’s the same work and so should carry the same fees. 
(same as for resources – same resources, should be the same fees)

3.5.1 please define per block. Is that $500 per allocation or per /24. 
Assuming is per allocation, this should be a sliding scale.



“Where transfers are due to mergers, acquisitions, or name changes, and 
where there is a

requirement for AFRINIC to evaluate the recipient organisation’s compliance 
with policy:

The fees under “Other transfers” will apply.”



This seems a contradiction.as :Other Transfers seems to deal with the same 
things.



3.5.2 $1000 for internal transfers is ludicrous.



3.6.3“For the purposes of this discount, critical infrastructure is as 
defined by any policy that specifically deals with critical infrastructure.”

That is not a definition



What category do INXes fall into?





From: Bope Christian [mailto:christianb...@gmail.com]
Sent: 24 May 2018 06:10 PM
To: community-discuss@afrinic.net
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Call for comments on proposed changes to 
AFRINIC fees



Dear AFRINIC members and community,



The AFRINIC Board constituted a Fee Review Committee in 2017 to consider 
changes to AFRINIC’s fee structure.  The committee presented a report to the 
Board on 9 May 2018, with updates on 23 May 2018.  The report is published 
at <  
https://afrinic.net/images/doc/fees-proposal-afrinic-20180523.pdf>.  A 
calculator that shows both existing and proposed fees is available at < 
 
https://preview.afrinic.net/membership-cost#calculator>.



In terms of Article 4.2(ii) of the AFRINIC Bylaws, the Board invites 
comments on the proposed new fees for a period of 60 days.  Comments should 
be sent to the community-discuss at afrinic.net  
mailing list, no later than 25 July 2018.



Best Regards,

Christian D. Bope, Ph.D

Chairman, AFRINIC Board









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

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

[Saul Stein]

There are many ways to address the issue.



Badges are allocated based on membership size (not that I agree with the 
membership size anyway). Smaller organisations aren’t sending more than one 
person anyway, the bigger the organisation, the bigger the budget so they 
can send more people and get more badges.



To an extent, the membership base and larger community are ultimately 
different. The membership is funding the community. It is no going to work 
if the community demand X but the membership can only afford and prepared to 
pay for Y.



I agree, this is a separate thread and agree that the finance and events 
team should be tasked to look at the expenditure of these events and ways to 
curtail that.



From: Noah [mailto:n...@neo.co.tz]
Sent: 18 May 2018 12:15 PM
To: Mark Elkins 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; AfriNIC 
Discuss 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western 
Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections







On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Mark Elkins  > wrote:

The AfriNIC meeting is primarily for its membership though the community is 
included - they (the community) are potential (paying) membership. Its 
certainly paid for by its membership and not the (non-membership part of) 
community.

We normally have atleast 3 individuals from my employer who attend both 
AfriNIC meetings and they form part of the membership and community. Same is 
true with most members who send part of their staff to this meetings and 
they form the entire community.



Dont attempt to separate the two please because they are the same.



You don't need to know how AfriNIC works in order to use the Internet.



Your point being...



So can we start seeing AfNOG removing all fees please at their meetings? 
Everyone should be freely (as in - no cost)  allowed to attend the training 
sessions.

This is ridiculous.



The delegates the AfNOG trains are mostly people who work for AfriNIC 
members. My employer does send our staff to AfNOG trainings and some of us 
also volunteer to train and transfer knowledge to delegates who mostly are 
part of the engineering work-force of some AfriNIC member.



So dont talk unless you know what you are taking about.







On 18/05/2018 11:54, Badru Ntege wrote:

Mark



I see we are starting to divide the haves and have nots.  The internet is 
for everyone regardless of how deep your pockets are.



Let’s remember that the big privileged members sell services to the 
community who are the real owners of AfriNIC.



What I see now is these privileged owners wanting to claim ownership and 
saying the poor should not be allowed in.



Africa is not North America  nor is it Europe or Asia.  It’s Africa with its 
unique challenges. Let’s stop these  comparisons.



Regards.

Sent from my iPhone


On 18 May 2018, at 12:36, Mark Elkins  > wrote:





On 18/05/2018 11:07, Ben Roberts wrote:

Noah,



So its pointless to have a nomcom in other-words



It may not be pointless to have a nomcom but they certainly can run better 
elections.


NomCom this year had a bad deal. I'm not sure that had NomCom been made up 
of any other people, whether it would have made any difference.
They were aboard the Titanic - they just didn't know it.





AfriNIC will be wasting members money to conduct elections which involves 
facilitating members of nomcom to fly to meetings to conduct elections where 
no candidate is elected.



Yes one of the ways that Afrinic wastes lots of money flying people around. 
This contributes to why our fees are so high compared to other RIRs we are 
in.


Regarding Money and Meetings.

I would like to propose to the community and membership that AfriNIC 
meetings are no longer free to attend - that we introduce a badge fee of 
(say) US$100 in order to acquire the badge. However, I believe Members 
(Registered, Associative and Resource alike) should be provided with free 
tickets (up to two for Resource organisations, otherwise one voucher per 
Registered or Associated) at the time of filling in their advanced 
registration. Sponsors should also get up to two vouchers. Registered 
speakers (and staff) should also get a voucher. If you Register at the event 
or don't have a voucher - you pay the $100.

At Dakar, I noticed a huge amount of well dressed local people - that 
arrived in rooms just before lunch vouchers were issues - and who 
disappeared after lunch. I don't see why AfriNIC should have to feed the 
free-loaders. This would have saved quite a bit.

This was discussed on the Board around 4 to 5 years ago but we thought we 
could manage. I think it now needs to be re-introduced.
I know you have to pay to go to RIPE - and I presume other RIR meetings?

Comments? (Preferably from people who were at the Dakar meeting and who saw 
this happening)







Sent from my 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections

[Saul Stein]

>If we actually want to make none of the above a candidate it should be
clearly stated in the bye laws.  

It is after all the will of the community.

 

 

 

 

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Resolution requesting the boards resignation

[Saul Stein]

I think that this raises and answers other questions.

The board hides behind “redacted” minutes of meetings. Minutes should be 
able to be published within a week. With nothing to hide, there should not 
be a problem. The wonderful thing about a fact is that it is just that: the 
truth and it will always be that and one doesn’t need to remember different 
stories!



The way board members vote is important to know. They are representing us, 
the voters, the community. They need to know that they are beholden to us. I 
elect a board member based on what he stands for, if he no longer does that 
after his election, he/she needs to know that I’ll be beating on his door 
and he won’t be getting my vote again!



A vote of no confidence was tabled and accepted. It has now been rejected. I 
am not going to repeat the words of others, I agree with all that has been 
said, but to add, we deserve the right to know who voted how to remove this 
item from the agenda.



I think that is why we don’t have a choice and sufficient candidates to 
elect.

No-one worth voting for is prepared to tarnish their name by association 
with the current board. (this is not hearsay, I have heard that there are 
those that are prepared to stand on a clean board)



Saul





Saul

From: Owen DeLong [mailto:o...@delong.com]
Sent: 22 April 2018 07:33 PM
To: Sander Steffann 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; AFRINIC 
Board of Directors' List ; members-disc...@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Resolution requesting the 
boards resignation



+1



I must condemn this action by the AfriNIC board in the strongest possible 
terms.



Choosing to sweep aside the community’s desire to hold a vote by resolution, 
offering to discuss at open mic as if it were a viable alternative is as 
insulting to the community as it is inappropriate for the board.



I urge the board to reconsider this action and restore the resolution to the 
agenda.



The board has now placed itself in a lose-lose position with regard to this 
matter.



If they refuse to restore the item to the agenda, both the AfriNIC community 
and global observers can only assume that the board is cowering in fear 
because they know such a vote would pass, thus the board has lost the 
confidence of the membership and should resign.



If they restore the item to the agenda, this action will surely have 
encouraged some who may have previously planned on voting against it to 
change their minds, making the vote even more likely to pass.



Nonetheless, since the board has, in all likelihood lost the confidence of 
the membership, the board should either permit the vote to proceed as 
planned and act in accordance with the outcome, or, the board should begin 
planning for a special election which will replace the entire board as soon 
as practicable.



Cowering behind procedure in an effort to limit the ability of the 
membership to manage the bottom up process within the organization is 
contrary to the spirit and intent of virtually every document in existence 
related to the creation, operation, and purpose of an RIR.



While documents such as ICP-2 did not consider the prospect of an RIR acting 
in bad faith or the need to de-certify an RIR, and while as I understand it, 
the NRO documents virtually all require the unanimity of all member RIRs in 
order to act, I believe the following are true:



1. The current election cycle may well be tainted.

2. The next election cycle the membership will almost 
certainly insist on each board

position having at least one candidate who is not 
affiliated with the current board.

3. The following election cycle will likely be the same.



So the board can, by this action, effectively hang on to power for 2 more 
years, but that’s about all it can accomplish.



Now, on the current path, perhaps the board can completely destroy the 
organization within that time, but let’s all hope it doesn’t come to that.



Again, for the sake of the entire RIR system, I urge the board to either 
allow this resolution to be noticed and considered by the AfriNIC members at 
the AGMM, or, to put in place an orderly process for election of replacement 
directors at the earliest practical time and immediately tender their 
resignations to be effective upon the completion of such election.



While I’m not a member of AfriNIC, the potential consequences if the AfriNIC 
board fails to allow this resolution to proceed stretch well beyond the 
AfriNIC service region and therefore cannot be ignored by the global 
community.



Owen







On Apr 22, 2018, at 09:50 , Sander Steffann  > wrote:



Hello,


Dear Mark,


The Board at a special meeting held on the 18th of April 2018 had the 
opportunity to reconsider your request  to 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Controversial anti-shutdown policy discussed at RIPE

[Saul Stein]

Hi,



Please can you explain how this is an abuse of the RPD?



We have a serious issue of internet shutdowns on our continent. The impact 
that it has on education, the economy etc is immeasurable!

This should be of grace concern to all of us!



The authors of the policy have stated numerous times that this is an 
evolving proposal.



The important thing is that it is encouraging global debate on how to 
resolve this issue. THAT is what this proposal is about – ways to prevent 
this from happening.



Whatever solutions we come up with – but that can only happen with this 
debate, so I don’t see how it’s a waist!



Saul





From: Mirriam [mailto:mirriamlau...@yahoo.com]
Sent: 11 May 2017 08:24 PM
To: Tutu Ngcaba ; Mark Elkins 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; AfriNIC 
List 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Controversial anti-shutdown policy 
discussed at RIPE



Hi All,



I totally agree with what Badru has stated and I really hope the PDP update 
policy proposal on the table before us can help to improve the Afrinic 
policy development process and environment notwithstanding quality of work 
so as to avoid such abuses of the pdp.



KR,

Mirriam





On Wednesday, May 10, 2017, 1:41:29 PM GMT+3, Tutu Ngcaba 
 > wrote:

Brother Elkins,



The ICANN chairman Steve said some concern of internet shutdown will 
undermine the missions of Icann and the Afrinic and they two have the 
potential power to do something in return.



The Afrinic Government Working Group AFGWG can work with the ICANN to 
achieve more mutlistakeholders talkings and meetings. This is what needs to 
be done in return.

I ask the AFGWG to do some taking to the ICANN and they can meet our 
governments for education on economic important of Internet.





Best Regards,

Tutu Ngcaba
Kwazulu Techno Hubs
South Africa






On 10 May 2017 12:53 p.m., "Mark Elkins"  > wrote:

I downloaded the complete video  from RIPE and watched it a few times. I was 
also watching live.

Its large - but if you can do, download it and watch it.

https://ripe74.ripe.net/archiv e/video/Andrew_Alston-Anti- 
Shutdown_Policies_-_The_Ration ale-20170508-171822.mp4 

 
'



Then again, when the Chairman of ICANN stands up and says that ICANN can 
help.

"Hi, my name is Steve Crocker, I am Chairman of ICANN and I'm here to help 
you. (Regarding) take out of the root the affected ccTLD names" and he then 
volunteered assistance from ICANN staff - also saying it would take between 
two and five years to get to a decision whether to proceed or not.

The current policy concept does not go that far - but to me - certainly 
suggests that the idea of punitive actions against governments is worth 
looking at.

I regard it like a nuclear bomb. When in the hands of sane people (RIR's and 
ICANN), it is a threat - to persuade bad actors to have second thoughts 
against cutting people off from access to the Internet. If governments 
choose to cut people off from access to the Internet for political reasons, 
to me this is undermining the core mission of ICANN and the RIR's, both of 
whom have the potential power to do something in return. We need to enable 
that power from being simply a potential to being ready for use and hope its 
never needed to be used.



On 10/05/2017 11:01, Noah wrote:

Mmmm on the contrary seems like most folk on the floor disagreed with the 
contraversial policy and its approach no matter how much the Arthors seek 
for better ways to improve it.



Some suggested multistake holder engagement and in particular Leslie Daigle 
comments on the floor are worth taking into serious considerations by the 
way.



Leslie Daigle of ISOC agrees that there is a problem. She has concerns but 
sounded to me more would like to see something. She just doesn't want to see 
dialogue being undermined by this policy.

Perhaps talk is not enough?






The best comment in my opinion was from the Alan Durand who reminded 
everyone what the real core mission of the RIR community is,  and that 
is



I'd say he was more worried about the policy being used for much more than 
it is currently intended for. (referenced to the colour of people's hair as 
a reason to cut them off the Internet).




"To allocate resources and maintain the accuracy of the database".PERIOD. 
[1]



Noah



[1]I have had in the past folk state statements like "How some ome runs his 
network is none of anyones business and in that matter policing the network 
is none of AFRINICs business"



On 10 May 2017 10:39 a.m., "Andrew Alston"  > wrote:

Thanks Marcus,



Just some feedback for the community.



It's been a 

Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal

[Saul Stein]

Hi



Currently, you can only apply for IP space for immediate usage and up to 1 
year and it currently takes about 3 months to get space (recent experience).



Just a question: if this gets passed, where is AFRINIC going to get the 
resources to do this since I don’t think that the hostmasters have the time 
for extra work of this nature.



Cheers

Saul





From: Arnaud AMELINA [mailto:ameln...@gmail.com]
Sent: 15 November 2016 11:49 AM
To: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy ; General Discussions of 
AFRINIC 
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal



Hi community !
Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from Owen 
and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the section 
3.3.3

-'---old version---''

3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:

a. They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants 
investigation.

new version-

3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:

a..They have requested the review themselves or
b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants 
investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC  staff 
shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this 
review is not applicable to a member  on which a full review has been 
completed in the preceding 24 months.

Regards.

Arnaud.

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Limit on the number of proxies

[Saul Stein]

>I don’t understand how we could keep electronic voting open for a few days 
>after the meeting.  How could we count the votes and announce the result if 
>voting is still >open?
Right, wasn't thinking. Had more the PDP stuff in my mind, but it wouldn't 
work.

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254

[Saul Stein]

Hi,

Here are some interesting points.



As things stand:

1)  AFRINIC makes money from assigning v4 space

2)  If you had to stop allocating v4 space today, there’d be a political 
uprising by many (and refer to above, AFRINIC would need to update its 
financial model ASAP

3)  As long as there is v4 space, people, due to human nature aren’t 
going to do extra work and migrate to v6

4)  We know that v4 exhaustion as per other regions forces v6 adoption



So why not let v4 be used up naturally?

Why when asking for v4 space (and justifying it) to the afrinic staff reply 
with: “and in consideration to the policy principle of conservation” The 
policy for allocations is for another topic)



If the ISP/LIR has a requirement for the v4 space to be used on the 
continent, give it to them:

a)  Its earns AFRINIC much needed revenue (this enables training, 
research and other important project)

b)  Facilitates the natural rundown of v4 space

c)   Ultimately will employ more people on the continent as Kevin points 
out, you’ll now be duplicating work



Basically a win-win situation. Let the v4 space go to LIRs who want/need it.





From: Andrew Alston [mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 14 October 2016 01:36 PM
To: Noah 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ; KICTAnet 
ICT Policy Discussions 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254



Noah,



What I was proposing below is *VERY* far from what ipv4-soft-landing-bis 
does.



I have, and continue to, oppose this policy.  Because it will extend the 
life of v4 while we languish behind in terms of v6 deployment.  I’ve already 
stated in previous emails on this thread that there is a clear correlation 
between v6 deployment and v4 depletion – and this proposal you reference 
slows v4 depletion.



I’ve also already stated there are organizations out there going v6 only 
with CGN64 / DNS64 to talk to the v4 internet – and that has big 
implications for people not running any v6 in the long term, negative 
implications.



Slowly the depletion of v4 does not help this continent – it hurts it – 
badly.  Look at the global v6 deployment map – Africa’s v6 penetration 
levels by the latest APNIC reports are at 0.15% compared to a global average 
of 7.94% (And google puts global average at closer to 12%).  The difference? 
The rest of the world depleted v4 – Africa hasn’t – and the motivation isn’t 
there to deploy.



Every day we hold v4 space for general allocation is another day this 
continent falls further and further behind.  We need to be doing everything 
we can to *accelerate* v4 depletion – not slowing it down.



Btw – the reason I haven’t moved this discussion onto the policy list is 
because there are wider areas than just specific policies.  If we get into 
policy specific issues I’d rather go to the RPD list – but I do think ideas 
as to the acceleration of v4 depletion and the benefits and drawbacks behind 
it are very much a topic for discussion by the community.



Andrew





From: Noah <  n...@neo.co.tz>
Date: Friday, 14 October 2016 at 13:20
To: Andrew Alston <  
andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com>
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC <  
community-discuss@afrinic.net>, Alan Barrett < 
 alan.barr...@afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv6 Chapter 254



On 14 Oct 2016 09:17, "Andrew Alston" < 
 andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com> 
wrote:
>
>   Basically, individuals can apply to the access fund for projects that 
> need v4 space that will directly benefit the continent, they would have to 
> prove v6 deployment alongside it (not just plans to take a v6 block and 
> announce it, actual deployment plans, which would be monitored), and the 
> project would have to provide KPI’s etc etc.
>
>

+1 Andrew and I totally agree with you.

Similarly there is a policy whose text proposes the same narrative...

 
http://afrinic.net/fr/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/1815-ipv4-soft-landing-bisI
 believe this covers pretty much what we are so far discusssing.Noah___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

Re: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address shortage - Daily Nation

[Saul Stein]

Hi Andrew,

This is where things start to get interesting. Corporate uptake…



I know that some ISPs give v6 to all customers, I wonder how many of them 
use it?



I have spoken to a few corporate customers to try and understand the 
barriers and interest.

Some, its bureaucracy different departments for LAN, firewall and then 
change control etc, for some its time – simply not high on the priorities 
board to allocate recourses, others its training and then the previous 
issues.



I have managed to get one to agree to take it, offered to assist them with 
the implementation, but that has still to go somewhere…..



From: Andrew Alston [mailto:andrew.als...@liquidtelecom.com]
Sent: 10 October 2016 08:47 AM
To: Ali Hussein ; KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions 
; General Discussions of AFRINIC 

Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address 
shortage - Daily Nation



As another note – that I forgot to mention in my previous email.



We have to educate our corporate consumers – because unlike the consumer 
market where you can turn on v6 through ISP controlled access to the CPE’s 
and it just works, corporates, you have to actually sit with them, discuss, 
and get them to move, because getting it to the edge of their networks is 
easy – getting them to enable it through firewalls etc – that’s another 
story.



Andrew





From: Ali Hussein  >
Date: Monday, 10 October 2016 at 09:01
To: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions  >, General Discussions of AFRINIC 
 >
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Liquid Telecom warns of looming address 
shortage - Daily Nation



Dear listers

Greetings and apologies for cross-posting.

Internet service provider Liquid Telecom Kenya has warned that Africa is set 
to run out of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses as early as next year, 
potentially slowing down digital growth in the continent.

Read on:-

http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Liquid-Telecom-warns-of-looming-address-shortage/996-3410850-format-xhtml-aub5sm/index.html

Couple of questions:-

1. How involved are we as a community in ensuring the smooth transition from 
IPV4 to IPV6?

2. What have been the major impediments to the successful migration?

3. How can we move the needle faster?

Ali Hussein
Tel: +254 713 601113

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

[Saul Stein]

A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a
quorum can include online participants and then how to carer for the
voting...
As the stats show, a large number of people voted, but might night have
been present and a number of onsite votes were probably proxies (although
that would count towards a quorum)

-Original Message-
From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dew...@tinitop.com] 
Sent: 28 September 2016 09:56 AM
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

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.
>
>  2013 201420152016
> E-Votes   58  59  49  183
> On-Site Votes 45  66  77  62
> TOTAL 103 125 126 245
>
> 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
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

[Saul Stein]

Hi, 

Agreed, having  associate members is beneficial in both directions and
this membership  category is common an many organisations in all
industries/membership based organisations.

1)  External parties have experience and knowledge in the outcome of
the organisation

2)  External parties might have in interest due to interoperability
with said organisation

3)  The organisation can learn from the experiences of others

 

Organisations that have do direct benefit in the outcomes of decisions
should not be allowed to vote since the outcome would not benefit them,
the result being their vote could be wasted!

 

So associate membership is a must, but no voting rights.

Category membership fees is debatable.

 

PS please can we keep the subject at least vaguely related to the subject
of the email.

 

From: Ben Roberts [mailto:ben.robe...@liquidtelecom.com] 
Sent: 20 September 2016 11:44 PM
To: ALAIN AINA 
Cc: General Discussions of AFRINIC ;
members-disc...@afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Community-Discuss] Accountability
assessment - bylaws changes

 

While we debate what consensus means I maybe have lost the thread of what
we were looking for consensus on. ?

 

There was something about associate members and if they should have voting
rights I recall?

 

Associate member category is really for interested parties who want to
'join in' but not be part of things properly and pay the full fees and use
the services. So maybe it might include research partners, people who want
to come along to our meetings and present and sell us stuff, etc etc

 

So no. The associate member category should not have the same voting
benefits as a LIR member. 



Sent from my iPhone


On 20 Sep 2016, at 11:24 PM, ALAIN AINA  > wrote:

Hi,

 

On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:27 AM, Andrew Alston

> wrote:

 

Ok,

 

We need to stop for a moment and look at reality - not wishful thinking.

 

Firstly - I am hearing talk of rough consensus - and while consensus is
applicable in many areas, I am far from convinced this is one of them.
The ONLY place consensus has in this regard is to get a vague indication
of which way the vote may go on a particular issue.  However, you can get
total consensus on this list and beyond - and still stand a good chance of
things not passing.

 

Why is this - consensus is defined as being reached when all substantive
objections have been addressed.  However, a substantive objection has to
have meaning, that is to say, there is some validity in what people are
objecting to.  And those can all be addressed, but when the
non-substantive,  the illogical, the uninformed, the emotional, or
whatever, arguments come into it - those cannot be taken into account in
consensus.  However, to accept or reject bylaw changes is not done by
consensus. It is done by *super majority* vote.

 

So, get all the consensus you like, you have a VAGUE indication - but
nothing more than that - because if people on the day go "I don't like
this, and it's not worth arguing about, so I will simply argue with my
vote", and they vote no, things still won't pass.  

 

Until we amend  the bylaws(as suggested by  point 11 of the CEO document [
Modification to the Bylaws or Constitution]), the "Super Majority"  you
are referring to means  "Super Majority of the registered members (the
current Board members)". So the board could easily amend the bylaws
without involving the community if it is only the voting which matter.

 

By involving the community, one expects that we listen to community, helps
the community build consensus on the amendments  and then adopt  them  by
the "Super Majority".

 

This community only makes decision by Rough Consensus and does not vote.
Voting is for the members who are the "Registered members".





 

So, let me now talk about committees - for what purpose?  So that the
"committee" can propose something and people just accept it?  So that the
"committee" can judge consensus somehow better than one person? So the
"committee" can take all the inputs and collate them into some nice
document better than one person can?

 

Yes and also lead the consensus building.

 It is also important  to note that while amending bylaws to improve
accountability is it not advisable that "Only" interested parties (CEO,
board..) lead the process.

 

 

Guess what - it's all meaningless - because at the end of the day - no
matter who proposes, no matter what form - if members like the PRINCIPLE
behind the change, they will vote in favor of it.  If they don't, no
matter who proposes it, they will vote against it.  And committees,
individuals, whatever, it's all meaningless if on the day, the *SUPER
MAJORITY VOTE* does not pass.  That means for every 1 vote that is cast
against, there must be 3 votes for. This is not a feel