[Community-Discuss] IPv6 in Zimbabwe

2016-09-28 Thread Andrew Alston 
Hi Guys,

So, let another exciting announcement – I apologize for the cross posting to 
both lists but I figured there were aspects of interest in both forums in what 
follows.

Yesterday we turned up IPv6 on our consumer products in Zimbabwe.  There are 
now in excess of 10 thousand FTTH users in Zimbabwe with active, live, native 
IPv6 – and they are actively using it.  This was the next phase after our 
smaller rollout in Kenya done a few weeks ago.

We crossed the 1.5gigabit/second of consumer v6 traffic last night in that 
particular location – and even more exciting, more than 70% of that traffic was 
sourced from CDN nodes and African peering – it did NOT come via long distance 
international links from Europe.

On the AFRINIC side – we followed the policy and registered each and every 
static customer assignment in the whois database – it held up well as we sent a 
bulk update with close to 15 thousand /48 assignments in a single update – my 
congrats to the AfriNIC team because that was one hell of a long update to 
process in one go.

So, with that said, others talk about being IPv6 ready – we can now proudly say 
we have gone from being IPv6 ready to being truly IPv6 active.

I expect the google stats and apnic stats will probably update in the next 2 or 
3 days and it will be curious to see what shows up.  Let’s wait and see as the 
updates happen.

Thanks

Andrew



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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

2016-09-28 Thread Jackson Muthili 
+1

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andrew Alston
 wrote:
> +1 Mark,
>
> I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in 
> business and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other 
> such things hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act 
> I’ve ever read.
>
> It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a proxy 
> to someone.
>
> A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person 
> who gave it to them.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins"  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> > Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
> > achieve a representative outcome.  However this opens another
> > question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
> >
> > We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member
> > views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
> > through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members who
> > might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.
>
> If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
> person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
> 100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
> them, my issue is with them, no one else.
>
> Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
> certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
> another year.
>
> If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
> them. I really don't see the problem.
>
> > We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
> > start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao"  wrote:
> >
> >> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
> >> percentage (of something or the other)?
> >>
> >> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
> >> were to double in a year or two.
> >>
> >> Dewole.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
>  On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
>   wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
> >  wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alan,
> >> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
> >> small, but I think 10% is too large.
> > Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
> > attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
> > and can use something like the lowest or average number of
> > members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
> > quorum requirement.
>  Sure, I can get those numbers.
> >>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
> >>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
> >>> members who attended the meetings.
> >>>
> >>> 2013201420152016 E-Votes58  59  49
>   183 On-Site Votes   45
> >>> 66  77  62 TOTAL103 125 126 245
> >>>
> >>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
> >>> 30 resource members in the future.
> >>>
> >>> Alan ___
> >>> Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> >>
> >>
> >> ___ Community-Discuss
> >> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> >
> >
> > ___ Community-Discuss
> > mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> >
>
> --
> Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> m...@posix.co.za   Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

2016-09-28 Thread Andrew Alston 
+1 Mark,

I would have thought this was pretty plain – it’s a global practice in business 
and I’d be surprised if people who have stood on boards and other such things 
hadn’t seen this fairly often, its enshrined in every company act I’ve ever 
read.

It’s the same way with shareholder meetings – a shareholder may give a proxy to 
someone.

A member may issue a proxy and that person then 100% represents the person who 
gave it to them. 

Andrew



On 28/09/2016, 20:08, "Mark Elkins"  wrote:



On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
> achieve a representative outcome.  However this opens another
> question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
> 
> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member
> views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
> through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members who
> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.

If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
them, my issue is with them, no one else.

Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
another year.

If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
them. I really don't see the problem.

> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
> start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao"  wrote:
> 
>> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
>> percentage (of something or the other)?
>> 
>> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
>> were to double in a year or two.
>> 
>> Dewole.
>> 
>> 
>> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
 On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
  wrote:
 
 
> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Alan,
>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
>> small, but I think 10% is too large.
> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
> and can use something like the lowest or average number of
> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
> quorum requirement.
 Sure, I can get those numbers.
>>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
>>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
>>> members who attended the meetings.
>>> 
>>> 2013201420152016 E-Votes58  59  49  
183 On-Site Votes   45
>>> 66  77  62 TOTAL103 125 126 245
>>> 
>>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
>>> 30 resource members in the future.
>>> 
>>> Alan ___ 
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> ___ Community-Discuss
>> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> 
> 
> ___ Community-Discuss
> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> 

-- 
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
m...@posix.co.za   Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za




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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

2016-09-28 Thread Mark Elkins 


On 28/09/2016 15:20, Badru Ntege wrote:
> Ultimately percentage of members is the logical and sustainble way to
> achieve a representative outcome.  However this opens another
> question when it comes to “representative” and actual votes.
> 
> We need to explore a way that also addresses actively engaged member
> views.  The current system is open to some kind of abuse where
> through the use of proxies,  votes are cast on behalf of members who
> might not even have a clue about what the vote is all about.

If I give my Proxy to someone - then I am implicitly trusting that
person - including their judgement/discretion on things I might not be
100% sure about. If I give them instructions and they fail to follow
them, my issue is with them, no one else.

Often, proxies will actually state how the "owner" wishes to vote on
certain (pre-defined) topics - i.e. - accept the current auditors for
another year.

If you don't trust a person to use your proxy wisely - don't give it to
them. I really don't see the problem.

> We have all noticed this in previous elections so I think we need to
> start putting our minds round how to find a solution.
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/28/16, 8:55 AM, "Dewole Ajao"  wrote:
> 
>> Is hard-wiring the numbers really a good idea as opposed to a
>> percentage (of something or the other)?
>> 
>> Just thinking of a way to fix the quorum even if active membership
>> were to double in a year or two.
>> 
>> Dewole.
>> 
>> 
>> On 28/09/2016 07:58, Alan Barrett wrote:
 On 26 Sep 2016, at 22:00, Alan Barrett
  wrote:
 
 
> On 26 Sep 2016, at 18:22, Douglas Onyango
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Alan,
>> The current quorum requirement is 10 members, which is too
>> small, but I think 10% is too large.
> Perhaps AFRINIC can share with us statistics on member
> attendance in the past 5 years. We can normalize this data
> and can use something like the lowest or average number of
> members present to prescribe a pragmatic number for our
> quorum requirement.
 Sure, I can get those numbers.
>>> Here are the number of votes cast during recent Board elections.
>>> The number of on-site votes gives a good idea of the number of
>>> members who attended the meetings.
>>> 
>>> 2013201420152016 E-Votes58  59  49  
>>> 183 On-Site Votes   45
>>> 66  77  62 TOTAL103 125 126 245
>>> 
>>> Given these attendance figures, I suggest a quorum requirement of
>>> 30 resource members in the future.
>>> 
>>> Alan ___ 
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>> 
>> 
>> ___ Community-Discuss
>> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> 
> 
> ___ Community-Discuss
> mailing list Community-Discuss@afrinic.net 
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
> 

-- 
Mark James ELKINS  -  Posix Systems - (South) Africa
m...@posix.co.za   Tel: +27.128070590  Cell: +27.826010496
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

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

2016-09-28 Thread abel ELITCHA 
Hi Chair,

"do we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i
believe has happened in the recent past.?"
I think this question from Noah remains unanswered. Am I right?

2016-09-16 14:53 GMT+00:00 Noah :

>
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Sunday Folayan 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 4. Membership of CoE
>> The Bylaws section 16 gives the Board the power to consider former
>> Chairpersons of AFRINIC for appointment to the Council of Elders. The Board
>> has not formally discussed appointing the former Chairman in question to
>> the CoE, but we will add a discussion of this issue to the agenda of the
>> next Board meeting.
>>
>>
> Hi Sunday,
>
> I am not sure if you received my previous email but I will ask again, do
> we have an update as this was pending a board seating/meeting which i
> believe has happened in the recent past.?
>
> Thanks and Regards…
>>
>> Sunday Folayan
>
>
> Noah
>
> ___
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>


-- 
Best regards,

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

2016-09-28 Thread Andrew Alston 
I think we also need to differentiate between quorum for vote vs quorum for 
membership. (Even if not normally – in the context of this discussion)

Proxies count btw – the rules on proxies are very clear – a person carrying a 
proxy represents the member who gave the proxy in every sense of the word.

Quorum for voting MUST include online voting in my view – every member that 
votes has still exercised their voice.

Andrew

From: Douglas Onyango 
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Date: Wednesday, 28 September 2016 at 12:19
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC 
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum


Hi Saul,
On 28 Sep 2016 11:33, "Saul Stein" 
> wrote:
> A percentage is good. However, I think that one needs to specify if a
> quorum can include online participants and then

I would prefer we leave this out so that we have discretion to use onsite 
members, and revert to remote participants only if we can't make quorum from 
members onsite. This way we can reduce the burden of online verification to 
only those ocassions where we don't have enough people onsite to meet the 
quorum requirement.

>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)

Voting is already sufficiently catered for to include onsite and online so I 
dont feel any further intervention is warranted. I also think we should try not 
to tie these two things together as that might upset the current balance.

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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

2016-09-28 Thread Dewole Ajao 
It makes sense for a meeting quorum to include online participants since 
the point of that option is to ensure that members do not miss out 
because of inability to physically attend. On the operational side, a 
meeting that fails to meet quorum for whatever reason also means more 
resources expended by the organization (and the less than 30 members in 
attendance).


Tracking remote participation would however require authentication e.g. 
by having members connect to the stream via MyAFRINIC rather than as 
guests. And then we will have to agree on what exactly constitutes 
meeting attendance... Would it be by... Connection to the stream for at 
least 75% of the meeting session? Connection to the stream during 
certain critical sessions? Keep-alive comment from remote member every X 
minutes so we are sure the remote participant is still an active part of 
the discussion?


It requires some thought.

Dewole.

On 28/09/2016 09:31, Saul Stein wrote:

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



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

Re: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - quorum

2016-09-28 Thread 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