[rpd] Sami's status as a co-chair

Thu Dec 6 07:14:40 UTC 2018

> On Dec 5, 2018, at 22:18, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
> 
> Dear Owen, 
> Thank you for the response. 
> I totally disagree with the fact that some people challenge some policies not because the policy is bad but just because they don't like the face of the person proposing it.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. 

I never made any claims about whether or not that is happening. I did say that numerous people, including myself,  have objected to this policy on its merits and for good and valid reasons. That is true. 

>   It is obvious this is happening I agree. This is something I hope we would be able to change in the near future. In fact, sometimes a lot of us don't even read or understand some of the policies but because some people have built for themselves a good reputation we agree to it.

To the extent this may be happening, I agree it’s unfortunate. However, we cannot truly know the motives of another person beyond what they tell us. Any other belief about their motives is speculation. 

As such, I cannot see any legitimate way to attack such a problem other than to discourage it in general. 

> This organisation should be based on reputation and one has to be very careful.

Here, I disagree. The organization should be based on facts, data, and evidence to the greatest extent possible. While the reputation of individuals may provide context in evaluating their comments, it should not get in the way of considering any factual data or evidence they present on its true merits. 

> Andrew is right sometimes and wrong sometimes just as you mentioned in your email but the way forward is to forget about the past we all start afresh. 

I don’t see that being very likely. People simply don’t forget so easily. 

> It is always obvious that most arguments on here are based on personality, not facts.   We cannot continue like this.

I am not so pessimistic. I think most arguments are based on facts and valid opinions. I think there are a few individuals who chronically engage in ad hominem and/or misleading or erroneous presentation of their position, but I don’t see them as a majority, and, most of them are appropriately ignored. 

> It is discouraging for a lot of people who wants to contribute positively to the development of AFRINIC. Let us please put our personal differences aside.  You and I know for a fact that the main reason for the attack on Sami is because of the decision he took.

I do not see an attack on Sami. I see an objection to his decision and I see a question about the expiration of his term. 

> If he did not no one would raise the issue and I agree with you that Yes Maybe according to the evidence available that I have seen so far Andrew is right.

If Andrew is factually correct, then I care not one whit about his motivation. 

> But the motivation is obvious and wrong.

Well, if Andrew is correct, then I believe we have a serious process issue which calls into question the legitimacy of the outcome. Regardless of Andrew’s motivation which I neither know, nor care, in my mind, the facts are that there is an open question which bears appropriate verification, investigation, and if necessary, action. 

I don’t view addressing this question as an ideal or desirable way to reverse the errant decision of consensus, but if we have failed to follow our own process, we have to address that issue in the best way possible. That begins with an open and transparent review of the assertions and accusations followed by a public authoritative disclosure of the results and then appropriate action by the board, go, and/or community to try and rectify any improper results. 

To me, the ideal way to address the erroneous decision to send the proposal to last call is for the Chairs to recognize their mistake and recant the decision. 

Absent that, the next best way to address it is through the documented appellate process.

Should that still fail, one hopes that the strong record of opposition in last call would force a decision of no-consensus in the last call result. 

Failing that, the appellate process again comes into play. 

Should that still fail, the board can still reverse the previous errors and determine that the pdp was not followed and remand the policy back to the PDWG. 

Finally, should the board fail here, there is the potential for litigation. I am quite certain that the record in this matter would cause any independent body to determine that a call of consensus against the existing record of discourse constituted a violation of the pdp and would, therefore be a reversible error. 

> Please, I beg us all to please look at collective issues, not personal gain all the time. It is all about given and taken.

I have nothing to gain or lose directly from the outcome of this policy. My only interest is a sincere belief about the good of the community as a whole. I hold no AfriNIC resources and cannot be subjected to this proposed policy. 

I have previously detailed several objections to the policy and I won’t repeat them here. 

Owen

> 
> Abdulkarim
> 
>   
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:28 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 5, 2018, at 12:12 , ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>> I would have wished to remain quite and keep watching things but it seams sometimes it's better to talk. 
>> 
>> True. This may not, however, be one of those times, but that’s entirely your decision.
>> 
>>> The only reason why Sami's position is being challenged now is because he took a deciosn that some people are not happy with and they now feel cutting his head off is better. 
>> 
>> I disagree with Sami’s and Dewole’s collective decision in this case. However, I have not, nor have I seen anyone else advocate decapitation of either of them, nor is anyone questioning Dewole’s standing. As such, I do not think you can fairly characterize those claiming that Sami’s term expired as related to the decision he made.
>> 
>> Frankly, I don’t care all that much whether his term expired or not, so I’m not going to weigh into that particular drama other than to say that regardless of motivation, the facts appear to support what Andrew is saying and if Andrew’s factual statements are true, then, there is an issue to be addressed regardless of how one feels about this particular decision.
>> 
>>> This is just rediculus. Can we not separate issues and always have to degenerate to this level.  
>> 
>> Not sure what you mean by separating issues. I don’t think anyone is trying to combine the question of Sami’s term expiration with the question of last call except to the extent that they are inexorably linked in such a way that if his term expired prior to the decision, then his participation in the decision process creates a legitimate concern about the validity of said decision.
>> 
>>> This was exactly my point in Tunisia. We need personality change not a change in policy cos some people would always want to have thier personal interest protected against the collective interest. 
>> 
>> While I believe your statement is partially true, I do not think it applies to the opposition to this policy nearly so much as to the proponents.
>> 
>> While I won’t defend Andrew’s actions in most cases, nor will I defend his personality… I find both rather reprehensible quite often and I tell him so directly on a regular basis (usually in private)… Nonetheless,  when he offers facts with evidence to back up those factual claims, it makes little sense to dispute them just because you don’t like the way he presents them.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Abdulkarim
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, 17:50 Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I want to clarify something – to be very sure.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> If I am correct – there was no election of a PDP co-chair in Tunisia.  Can someone please confirm that?  Because if there was no election – we only have ONE chair at the moment – and Sami’s status as a co-chair has lapsed and he cannot adjudicate on consensus.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> I say this – because in Dakar – and for those of you that were not there, please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWTApl4QHfY at about 13 minutes in, Sami’s position was granted as interim only – and only for the following 6 months until the next PDP.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> So – unless there was an election called – and video evidence of this – Sami is no longer eligible to act in the position of co-chair – since his mandate was not granted by this community on the floor of a meeting, and as per the legal counsel at the Dakar meeting – any position into which Sami entered – was only valid until the November meeting, and the co-chair goes on, on record on the microphone to further state that Sami was only appointed “Until the next PDP meeting”
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Sami – on that note, thank you for your service as the interim co-chair over the preceeding 6 months.
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Andrew
>>>> 
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> RPD mailing list
>>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>> 
>>> Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Abdulkarim A.Oloyede. B. Eng (BUK), M.Sc (York), PhD (York), R.Eng, A+
> Senior Lecturer, Department of Telecommunications Science, University of Ilorin, Nigeria
> Vice Chairman, Telecommunications  Development Advisory Group (TDAG), International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
> Alternative Emails: olouss at yahoo.com  OR  aao500 at york.ac.uk
> 
> 
> 
> Website, Weekly Bulletin UGPortal PGPortal
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20181205/82f3b13d/attachment-0001.html>