On 16 Jun 2025, at 16:38, Andrew Alston <aa@alstonnetworks.net> wrote:

Hendrik,

Firstly, I believe that those requirements were put in place to prevent what had clearly happened in the past, where certain organisations and individuals were going around asking admin contacts to hand over their afrinic details so they could vote on their behalf.  Basically, there was a need to protect from election rigging.

well… the OR haven’t stated anything about the POAs… so that leaves a big question of impartiality and validity

As much as these *looks* like and attempt to prevent it, it really seems like it made things easier for NRS to obtain those votes for their POA’d “clients” and there in lies a big question that the OR haven’t answered.

I know such requests went out because I'm in possession of such a letter.  Basically, people were asking technical folk to hand over their voting rights (and may or may not have been offering to pay for it), the notarization prevents this from happening,

Does it? The OR haven’t addressed that in public yet.

and in my view, was critical for a more secure voting process. 

Depends, as the notarization process adds onerous demands on members, that suddenly asks for how to do it for members that doesn’t have that process in place for their country? And why the sudden costs associated with the notarization? question I’ve been wondering, and the OR stayed silent on.

If you think about it logically, it is *far* more difficult to get a director of a company to go and hand you power of attorney / notarized letters than it is to get some random techie who happens to have voting rights to hand over those rights. 

So, it makes it easier for those that get “support” from a POA’d support from a company like NRS that has the POA to act accordingly and pay for the votes.

I have no idea how or why CIL was made a registered member - or how they were removed - and it raises troubling questions - but none of those questions were either asked or answered by the court order that we find ourselves with. I believe that once a board is constituted - and I've said this to multiple board candidates, I would hope that the first thing the board does is a full forensic audit of the organisation, and then we may get clarity on such issues.

That is the problems Andrew that should be answered… else how sure are you that you aren;t entering into a rigged election to start with?

But - It starts with being able to have a functional board - and the TISPA order prevents any election because it is not possible to actually follow the court order.  That's just hard fact.

I don’t disagree, but the issue stays: We aren’t fighting for a proper election, we are now infighting for the election we *HOPE* will solve the problems, and are starving to have… just, is that election being fight in the right manner and why the OR’s silence on these issues?


If there is evidence that the election was somehow being rigged under the new system, let's see the evidence, and then make a call,  but right now, we do not have that evidence

- The notarization requests *sounds* good, but why the sudden requirement?
- why the members that got added post OR appointment being excluded?
- why the member that paid for resouces on receipt of invoice, and not issued resources, are prevented from voting?
- The OR haven’t stated anything about the POAs and how that will be handled
- The addition of CIL to the board immediately added serious suspicion and no clarification from the OR

- all we have is a court order making re-constitution of the afrinic board impossible.  I have also requested that TISPA disclose the request under which this order was granted, and I am curious to see if they are willing to do so, especially since the order makes it clear that TISPA is directly liable for any damages that result from the issuing of the order should the order be overturned.

Also awaiting that, but the main points they claim, are based on https://tispa.or.tz/post/36/ 


THanks

Andrew


Andrew


On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 5:11 PM Hendrik Visage <hvisage@hevis.co.za> wrote:
Having heard the discussions from TISPA’s perspective,  the issues I see to address is more:

1) These POAs that was asked for: will they have the same power as proxies? Will they also be limited to 5x “proxies”? Who is holding those POAs?

2) Why the need suddenly of the notarizations? it is adding onerous requirements not according to the by laws.

3) We still need clarification of the CIL adding and removal to the board, also the other removals?

and I don’t see you responding to those issues Andrew. I don’t see TISPA etc. not arguing the points you’ve raised, but more these issues you are not addressing below.

---
Hendrik Visage


On 16 Jun 2025, at 15:34, Andrew Alston via zanog-discuss <zanog-discuss@lists.nog.net.za> wrote:

Hi All,

I am going to refrain from commenting on my views on any candidates - other than to say that I believe that directors of AfriNIC need to have business and directorship experience, and we need to realize that the board does not play a technical function, it runs a company, and in this case, a company with deep seated legal issues (and probably political issues as well), and in my view the only questions that really need answering about the candidates are - do they have the business acumen and experience leading corporate entities so they can resolve the issues we are faced with.

That being said, I did want to comment on the TISPA injunction.  

Whoever thought this was a good idea - clearly hadn't read the bylaws.  The court order as it stands does not allow for any election to take place - it is impossible to fully comply with the bylaws and hold an election at the current time.

Let me explain:

a.) First - the bylaws specify that elections are held at a quorate AGMM - at this point - it is not possible to get that quorum.

To elaborate on this - there is a claim that someone could ask the court to appoint interim directors purely for the purpose of holding an election, and this would make the meeting quorate.  These claims are categorically false.
Article 12.10.ii of the bylaws sets the quorum, and it is explicit, that quorum is made up of 4 directors ELECTED to represent a region, 1 director ELECTED as a non-regional director, and 5 resource members. Key to this is the word ELECTED -  appointed directors do not count towards quorum.

b.) The bylaws explicitly state a list of things that have to be in the notice of meeting, and that said notice of meeting has to be distributed to the secretary, every member, every director and the auditor of the company.  The company currently has no auditor - hence - article 12.2.i cannot be complied with

c.) In the event of (b) not being complied with - a waiver can be granted if *every* member, unanimously, agrees to waive the irregularity in the notice of meeting.  I do not see that happening.

d.) Article 12.14 permits members to submit proposals to be heard at an AGMM.  Said proposals have to be submitted to the board - we currently have no board - making it impossible to comply with article 12.14

e.) Under the bylaws directors are appointed in a specific sequence - again - this is hugely problematic in terms of an election that complies to the bylaws, since, members are explicitly elected to hold a 3 year term, and the bylaws don't allow for that to be altered, which breaks the sequential election (This is found in article 13.5/13.6)

f.) The only variation of (e) is the powers granted to the board to elect to fulfill a casual vacancy - but that power is only granted to a sitting board - which we don't have - and said board members would not count towards quorum anyway due to point (a)

Effectively, what the TISPA injunction does, is order something that is fundamentally impossible - and hence - that order is now going to have to be challenged, and overturned, because if an attempt is made to hold an election while that order stands - the election can be challenged by anyone for not complying with the bylaws and its back to square one we go.  Basically, that injunction by TISPA was clearly done without any understanding of what they were asking the court for, and accomplishes absolutely nothing other than to ensure further delays and create more grounds under which people can dispute any election that is held.  It was, in my opinion, short sighted, showed a complete lack of knowledge and homework into the bylaws, and does nothing but hurt the chances of us ever getting AfriNIC back on its feet.

It would not surprise me in the slightest if the new ICP-2 document comes into force before we actually get an election and it also would not shock me in the slightest if AfriNIC was then replaced should that happen - because its clear that the community in Africa is not acting in a manner consistent with fixing AfriNIC - if they were - the election would be proceeding.

Just my thoughts

Andrew 

_______________________________________________
zanog-discuss mailing list -- zanog-discuss@lists.nog.net.za
To unsubscribe send an email to zanog-discuss-leave@lists.nog.net.za

---

Hendrik Visage

hvisage@hevis.co.za


HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd

https://www.envisage.co.za

 
 

---

Hendrik Visage

hvisage@hevis.co.za


HeViS.Co Systems Pty Ltd

https://www.envisage.co.za