[rpd] Appeal Committee Terms of Reference (Version 1)

Sun Aug 13 05:00:57 UTC 2017

I think a positive first step towards useful dialog would be for the authors of SL-BIS to work with the authors from the other proposal to craft a new proposal and abandon SL-BIS as previously agreed. I think with that restoration of good faith, it would be much easier to move forward. If they continue to stubbornly cling to the existing proposal even after the strong showing of support for mutual abandonment and agreement thereto, then I think it is that single issue which makes it difficult for one side to trust that the other may work with them in good faith to reach resolution.

Owen

> On Aug 12, 2017, at 03:58 , Ademola Osindero <ademola at ng.lopworks.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I very much share Eddy’s sympathy on the deteriorated state of this collaboration. We cannot pretend all is fine and expect to move further with any proposal. Neither can we venture down the lane of exploring sanctions. The community is meant to be an egalitarian society and appointed leaders are only chosen to help steer the wheel of affairs.
> 
> Like in all conflicts, if we allow this enmity to continue, it will be total chaos for Afrinic. I do second the option of calling for an emergency resolution meeting to hold either virtually or at a physical location. Let us all work together to douse the growing tension. More so, this community has grown over the years with several people coming on board. We have to learn to listen to divergent views.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> Ademola Osindero
> 
> CEO/Consulting Director
> Lopworks Limited
> 29 Ago Palace Way,
> Okota, Isolo,
> Lagos, Nigeria
> 
> Mob: +234 8058097820 <tel://Mob: +234 8058097820>, +234 <tel://+234> 8091291780 <tel://+234 8091291780>
> Tel: +234 1 3422633 <tel://Tel: +234 1 3422633>
> Email: ademola at ng.lopworks.com <mailto:ademola at ng.lopworks.com>
> Web: http://www.lopworks.com <http://www.lopworks.com/>
> On 12 August 2017 at 11:05:28, Eddy Kayihura (ekayihura at gmail.com <mailto:ekayihura at gmail.com>) wrote:
> 
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> I have to admit it is very sad to see where we have reached at as a community.
>> 
>> I have friends from both sides that seems to be at war and I have failed to understand what is at stake. Maybe I am not looking hard enough or have not searched deep enough.
>> 
>> In a family, when there is conflict and people still do want to keep the family fabric alive, people sit down and discuss matters sometimes with neutral wise men (and women in our generation).
>> 
>> Do you think there is still a small chance for our community to stay united? We don't need to agree on all but should keep the interests of the community at heart.
>> 
>> These debates have become so toxic that it is hard to focus on what's important. With this bottom up process we don't distribute red cards and everyone can add his sauce on the mix (even me with no understanding on the discussed topic :-)
>> 
>> I don't think we are a community that can evolve with consensus any more since we have allowed these diverging opinions and camps to divide us so much. It is no longer what it used to be: "a group of geeks working together for the good of the Internet as well as the continent."
>> 
>> My humble proposal is to zoom out a bit and seat at a virtual round table with the intention to dilute each sides toxic glass. 
>> 
>> Not sure how this would work but hope the wise men and women can know how to moderate such debate.
>> 
>> Hoping we still have those wise persons in this community...
>> 
>> My 2 cents...
>> 
>> On Aug 11, 2017 12:20 PM, "Noah" <noah at neo.co.tz <mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 11 Aug 2017 5:23 a.m., "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:
>> I understand why you think these are better, but I will agree to disagree.
>> 
>> Owen,
>> 
>> The board asked for suggestions and I have shared different options we can explore and I didnt expect you personally to agree with these suggestions even a bit considering your openly biased view point ref: the matter.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think any of those constructs would result in factional distrust of the outcome of the process.
>> 
>> 
>> Can you please elaborate fully this factional distrust you assume. Dont you think you contribute to it?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Noah
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> RPD mailing list 
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> 
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20170812/ab824177/attachment-0001.html>