[Community-Discuss] IPv6 Usage on the Internet

Morning Where can I get our IPv6 Usage on the internet? Our block is 2001:43f8:2a0::/48. Thank you Regards Lesedi Luke Dick Networks | IT University of Botswana Tel: +267 355 4101 Fax: +267 3901594 Skype ID: lesedilukedick { Please consider the environment before printing this email }

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

>> The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems >> that the companies act requires proxies. > > … And we explained that in the context of Company act, the limit of 5 proxies > is legal. as Company act only recognise the nine(9) board members as AFRINIC >

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 7:52 PM, ALAIN AINA wrote: > As discussed, the limit of proxy to 5 per person and zero proxy per > candidate in the bylaws(which applied to Registered members and "Resources > Members") was decided by this community to solve some issues to the >

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 18:42, Owen DeLong wrote: > How about this: > > 11.5 Ratification of policy adopted by the Board: > (a) Any policy adopted by the Board under the

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > That wasn't an issue of illegality of AfriNIC. > The issue was whether or not the limit on the number of proxies carried by a > single member would survive a legal challenge. Yes. This discussion went into this as some

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 18:42, Owen DeLong wrote: >> > > 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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

I disagree. If a conflicted member has fully disclosed the conflict to the board, I believe they are capable of weighing this properly in considering his argument. Let us respect the board that we have elected and not treat them like children here. Owen > On Nov 12, 2016, at 21:50, Badru

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

> On Nov 12, 2016, at 02:52, Christian Bope wrote: > > 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.

Re: [Community-Discuss] Bylaws changes

> On Nov 11, 2016, at 22:43, Alan Barrett wrote: > > >> On 12 Nov 2016, at 00:18, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Item 4, I propose changing the text in 13.5 from: >> >> “13.5 Each of the following six sub-regions of Africa shall be represented >> by one

Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue of AfriNIC illegality

That wasn't an issue of illegality of AfriNIC. The issue was whether or not the limit on the number of proxies carried by a single member would survive a legal challenge. The advice from counsel is that it most likely would not. Further, it seems that the companies act requires proxies.

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

>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.

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

Hi Alan, Thank you. On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Alan Barrett wrote: > > > On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:53, Noah wrote: > > Did the BoD ever meet/seat in October and where the minutes of that > meeting approved. > > > > I went here

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

> On 11 Nov 2016, at 20:53, Noah wrote: > Did the BoD ever meet/seat in October and where the minutes of that meeting > approved. > > I went here http://www.afrinic.net/en/about/bod/meeting/2016 so that I can > read but I see nothing. Hi Noah, The minutes of that meeting

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

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 14:54, Alan Barrett wrote: >> On 14 Nov 2016, at 13:17, Dewole Ajao wrote: >> >> Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic >> voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed

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

> On 14 Nov 2016, at 13:17, Dewole Ajao wrote: > > Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic > voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed (where > possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them. I know that, in

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

Perhaps we could ask from the members what the concerns are with electronic voting that make them prefer proxies. These should be addressed (where possible) to make e-voting more attractive to them. While last-minute deciders may desire to keep e-voting open for a while longer than onsite