> On Oct 3, 2016, at 9:48 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:08 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Alan,
>>>
>>> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also
>>> suggested), was to limi
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:08 AM, Alan Barrett wrote:
>
>
>> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>
>> Hello Alan,
>>
>> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also
>> suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per
>> region a
I agree with Boubakar here. I think that granting associate membership voting
rights is an invitation to organizational capture.
Consider the relatively low voting participation as it stands (IIRC, the last
time I was involved in counting an AfriNIC election,
there were fewer than 200 total vote
Hi Noah,
On 19 Sep 2016 15:32, "Noah" wrote:
> Is there anything unique with any of the independents who have been
elected this far. As far as i can tell, the individuals get to the board
and play by the same rules...
>
While you are right about the similarity in post-election mandate, the
releva
On 19 Sep 2016 13:28, "Douglas Onyango" wrote:
>
> Adding any such language would make the Independent Director no
> different from Regional Directors, which would make it cease to be
> unique/relevant.
>
Is there anything unique with any of the independents who have been elected
this far. As far
> On 19 Sep 2016, at 15:09, Frank Habicht wrote:
>
> Hi Alan,
>
> rough thoughts...
>
> 1. announcement to PDP list as soon as practically possible after the
> resolution of the board (max 7 calendar days)
> 2. discussion in the next PDP meeting with gauging acceptance
> (like any policy p
Hi Alan,
rough thoughts...
1. announcement to PDP list as soon as practically possible after the
resolution of the board (max 7 calendar days)
2. discussion in the next PDP meeting with gauging acceptance
(like any policy proposal)
3. few weeks last call (after PDP meeting minutes posted to
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:08 AM, Alan Barrett
wrote:
>
> > On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> >
>
> Remember that Bylaws changes need a 75% majority. Would adding
> geographical restrictions to the non-geographical seats have enough support
> to pass?
>
SO: I think thats fair eno
Hi Seun,
On 19 September 2016 at 13:32, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Douglas Onyango
> SO: I think the intent is clear and your proposal above could address it. So
> if i get you correctly, you are suggesting to put such criteria into the
> guideline instead?
Yes. I wo
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:25 AM, Douglas Onyango
wrote:
> Hi Seun,
>
> However, given the realities on the ground -- like the scenario we had
> during out last election -- I would support making this an
> additional/optional criteria for NomCom to use when enough candidates
> have been presented
> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:59, Frank Habicht wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I have a question about item 12 (last, "Policies introduced by the
> Board") among the proposed changes.
>
> So far we have "measuring of acceptance" at the PDP meetings, no
> "approval" or "voting".
>
> This suggestion intro
Hi Seun,
On 19 September 2016 at 12:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also
> suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per
> region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we end
>
+1 to Frank.
The PRIMARY value to Associate members should be reflected in the association
with Afrinic and not Voting.
The PRIMARY value to resource members are the resources from Afrinic.
rgds
-
Eng. Abibu R. N
> On 19 Sep 2016, at 13:08, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hello Alan,
>
> One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also
> suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per
> region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we
Hello all,
I have a question about item 12 (last, "Policies introduced by the
Board") among the proposed changes.
So far we have "measuring of acceptance" at the PDP meetings, no
"approval" or "voting".
This suggestion introduces "endorsement" during the PDP meeting, while
all other PDP decision
Hi Douglas,
valid points.
One small "value addition" is of course the "priceless" association with
AfriNIC. I trust that for "some, but only a few" entities this could be
enough value.
But beyond that I think the question is: "how much more value does
AfriNIC want to give and how many more associ
Yes indeed and that would be in extreme situation. The more probable
scenarios is when we have 3.
Cheers!
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:38 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:
> How could it ever be four? Or are you counting the region that the CEO
> comes from?
>
>. .___. .__ Posix Systems -
How could it ever be four? Or are you counting the region that the CEO comes
from?
. .___. .__ Posix Systems - (South) Africa.
/| /| / /__ m...@posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
> On
Hello Alan,
One point I observed has not been captured in the summary (which i also
suggested), was to limit the Independent Director seat to "at most" one per
region at any given time. This will address a possible situation where we
end up having 4 directors from a region.
Regards
On Fri, Sep 1
I agree with the sentiments as echoed by Boubakar below.
Thanks
Andrew
From: Mike Silber
Reply-To: General Discussions of AFRINIC
Date: Monday, 19 September 2016 at 10:39
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC
Cc: "members-disc...@afrinic.net"
Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Acco
> On 18 Sep 2016, at 23:44, Boubakar Barry wrote:
>
…
> We can of course think of advantages we can give to associate members to
> acknowledge their commitment and support. But I would not support giving
> voting rights to associate members. I would rather be for removing this
> membership
Hi Frank, et al,
On 19 September 2016 at 06:49, Frank Habicht wrote:
> I agree, with all of the above. Well said.
> Considering that someone could control many legal entities, and these
> could all become associate members, that could change voting outcomes
> very much into that someone's favour.
Hi,
On 9/19/2016 12:44 AM, Boubakar Barry wrote:
> Not sure it's as simple as that.
>
> Do we want to encourage people/organisations to be be associate members
> just because of granted voting rights that have the potential of
> affecting resource members only?
>
> I know of organisations in wh
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Jackson Muthili
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango
> wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> > Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for
> continued
> > deliberation on amendments of the bylaws.
> >
> > Regarding #1, specifically the
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Douglas Onyango wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued
> deliberation on amendments of the bylaws.
>
> Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I
> was, and still I am opposed
Hello,
At the moment we have three main categories with their purposes;
1. We have the entire community, which includes everyone participating
within AFRINIC one way or the other.
2. We have those who are customers of AFRINIC (referred to as resource
members)
3. We have those who are "literally
Hi Alan,
Thanks for sharing this document. It will form a solid basis for continued
deliberation on amendments of the bylaws.
Regarding #1, specifically the Associate Members' right to (or not) vote, I
was, and still I am opposed to the idea of rescinding the Associate Members
rights to vote.
Rat
to article 1 of the document
will have no vote)
Thanks
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Alan Barrett [mailto:alan.barr...@afrinic.net]
Sent: 16 September 2016 17:17
To: General Discussions of AFRINIC
Subject: [Community-Discuss] Accountability assessment - bylaws changes
On 10 June, I
> On 16 Sep 2016, at 19:54, Mark Elkins wrote:
>
> I've taken a look at the suggested outcome (The proposed amendments) and
> generally I believe the suggested amendments to be very
> acceptable. Thank you for taking the time and doing this Alan.
>
> My only disappointment is the outcome regard
On 10 June, I posted a document describing potential areas for improvement in
the Bylaws as a result of an accountability assessment. I invited the
community and membership to comment on these issues.
I have considered the discussion, and I have asked the legal adviser to draft
appropriate cha
30 matches
Mail list logo
