I wanna point out something else - and I realize that this is going to be controversial and cause much screaming - but it needs to be said.
If these POA's exist (and I have serious doubts about that ) - for a POA to be granted, it would have to be granted by someone who has the delegated authority to grant such - that being a director of the company.
Now - last I checked, a company can issue a POA to whoever it wants - provided that the POA was issued by someone who had the authority to issue it. So, even if these POA's do exist - provided they were issued by someone with the authority to do so - there is absolutely nothing that can be done about that. Unless you are saying we should now dictate to companies how they do their business. We might not LIKE it, it might not be what we consider ethical, but - if a POA was legitimately issued (as in issued by someone who had authority to do so) - then it is what it is.
Now, lets consider the alternative in the way elections used to be conducted. If you had someones myafrinic password, you could vote on their behalf. Those individuals who had access to the MyAfrinic accounts were, from what I can see, mostly technical people and probably not directors, and probably did not have the authority to give away that access - but could have done so anyway. In that scenario - yes - I would be extremely worried about the legitimacy of votes under the old system - because of the risk of credential sharing.
But with POA's - and the requirements involved in issuing them and getting them signed - I don't have concerns - because a company has the right to issue a POA to whoever they damn well want to, provided it was legitimately issued by someone with authority to do so. If a POA is presented that was *NOT* legitimately issued by a director - then whoever is presenting it is commiting fraud, and should be held accountable. if you have evidence of fraudulent POA's - then - that needs to be disclosed. Otherwise - the situation is what the situation is.
I also have a problem with the fact that every time someone disagrees with something with regards to AfriNIC - they are suddenly labelled as being in cahoots with Lu Heng. I find this frankly offensive - because it implies that anyone who has a differing opinion is suddenly taking the side of someone else - and gives zero credence to the fact that some of us have independent minds, can think for ourselves, and have put substantial work into understanding the bylaws, the mauritian companies act, and the relevant legislation. It would seem to me that certain parties have become so entrenched in their hatred of Lu Heng, that its become a very easy card to play when you disagree with someone, just pretend they are tied to Lu Heng.
It's absolute nonsense - and it's not conducive to a discussion on the facts, the legal angles, what the bylaws state, what the companies act states, and what the rights of corporate entities are in respect to how they delegate their powers.
Andrew