Question 1
Does the named person support, reject, abstain from, or hold no position on using AFRINIC registry control against ordinary downstream address use?
Public accountability
These are the named people behind the authority problem.
NRS separates public records from accountability questions. Each card preserves a named profile route for governance review without turning unanswered questions into legal findings.
Receiver
Gowtamsingh Dabee
Receiver authority and election-process questions.
Purported Board Seat 1
Kate M. W. Getao
Board-seat authority and public-answer status.
Purported Board Seat 2
Nii Quaynor
Registry governance and member-rights questions.
Purported Board Seat 3
Mwende Njiraini
Public accountability and authority-chain review.
Purported Board Seat 7
Benjamin Mark Roberts
Non-Regional board-seat profile and control-risk review.
Purported Board Seat 4
Seun Ojedeji
Election-process reliance and public-answer status.
Purported Board Seat 5
Manal Ismail
Member-rights and registry-control accountability.
Purported Board Seat 6
Jean-Robert Hountomey
Authority-chain and public record preservation.
Purported Board Seat 8
Ajao Adewole David
Named-person answer and evidence preservation.
Question 2
What public record proves that the person has lawful authority to speak or act for AFRINIC before affected members are exposed to registry pressure?
Question 3
What documents, votes, conflict declarations or public reservations should members preserve while the authority chain remains disputed?
No collective shield.
NRS asks named individuals for attributable answers. A collective institutional label does not close the public record.
The accountable answer can be short: support, reject, abstain, or no position.
Authority chain
Disputed
Public answer
Pending
Evidence file
Preserve
Member impact
Operational
NRS has recorded public questions and has yet to receive an answer from the named people. These pages preserve public-accountability questions and should not be read as court findings.