[rpd] Query on appeal

Thu Dec 6 07:51:37 UTC 2018

Hi,

I support the appeal.

I think it is unreasonable how the policy was dragged into last call when
there are obvious opposing voices. Certain concerns are clearly not
addressed. Consensus is not reached in any sense. I do not see the process
of a sensible, open and transparent discussion but a brutal and abrupt
decision made by certain parties. The very foundation of policy-making is
violated and it clearly sets as an extremely bad example for the future. To
bring back the policy to discussion phase is not just important for the
current policy but also for future policies. Let's not violate the very
principle of policy-making.

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 14:55, ABDULKARIM AYOPO OLOYEDE <
oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng> wrote:

> Dear all,
> I really like this write up from Andrew,
> Can this form the basis of our reconciliation process?
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 6:20 PM Andrew Alston <
> Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>
>> See – Sadly I believe this broke down a long time ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> Go back and watch the video of the Mauritian meeting with another policy
>> – where multiple appeals were made from multiple people at the floor asking
>> for withdrawal – and it was consented to in my belief (though they now
>> dispute that, despite that which is clearly on the video) and have pushed
>> that ahead time and again – to the point where it was defeated by the
>> appeal process as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> The definition of consensus is clear – in the face of an unaddressed
>> sustained objection there can be no consensus – but there are those who
>> believe this does not apply to them.
>>
>>
>>
>> We sit in a situation where there are those who stand at the microphone
>> and openly and plainly advocate that the bylaws can be ignored.
>>
>> We sit in a situation where a co-chair comes to the list and instead of
>> saying – I was granted 6 months by a vote of this community – my term has
>> expired – attempts to justify and obscure.
>>
>> We sit in a situation where the members of this organisation requested a
>> vote of no confidence in the board – and the board refused to table the
>> motion.
>>
>> We sit in a situation where – when the board lost quorum for an AGMM –
>> instead of turning to the community and saying – we have a major problem –
>> help us fix it via an SGMM and a vote on the bylaws to fix the problem –
>> chose instead to approach the courts.
>>
>> We sit in a situation where in Mauritius – with a multitude of bylaw
>> changes were proposed to rectify various corporate governance issues –
>> including a simple thing like stating that when a director leaves the
>> board, he is obliged to renounce his legal membership of the company –
>> could not get a vote to pass because some individuals believed that you
>> don’t vote for something you yourself propose.
>>
>> We sit in a situation where those who once had such good intentions
>> architecture a way to “stay relevant” for a period that is **at minimum**
>> 18 years after they left the board.
>>
>>
>>
>> But – instead of us acknowledging things are fundamentally broken – and
>> then working towards fixing them – we deny the problems – we hide our heads
>> in the sand – and we employ “whataboutism” (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism) en mass.
>>
>>
>>
>> There can be no repair in this community until it is prepared to take a
>> long hard look and acknowledge that there is something deeply wrong, and
>> that things are deeply flawed.  For myself personally – and I admit this –
>> I have gotten to the point where I no longer have faith that things will be
>> repaired – and as I have stated in previous emails – I believe that the
>> only time things will come right – is when an external party with more
>> authority finally adjudicates.
>>
>>
>>
>> That being said – I cannot – and will not – be the man who stands on the
>> boat knowing there is a giant hole in the bow and the water is flooding in
>> – and at the risk of offending others – holds my tongue and says nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even in writing this – I am fully cognisant of those who are going to
>> employ more whataboutism to attack what I am saying here – but I’m actually
>> ok with that – because it will simply prove what I have said time and again.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is a sad situation – but – in life – we deal with such all the time –
>> and somehow – we continue – but can we really claim we have a community
>> anymore? Or are we in fact a very divided group where no one group will
>> give an inch and are pulling in opposite directions?  Where factionalism –
>> and dare I say it – a strange form of policy tribalism now grips us.?
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* aleruchi chuku <aleruchichuku at yahoo.com>
>> *Sent:* 05 December 2018 17:32
>> *To:* Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>;
>> pdwg-appeal at afrinic.net
>> *Cc:* rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Query on appeal
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew + 1 in support of the appeal
>>
>>
>>
>> But I must say that it is sad that we got to this stage. Something is
>> drastically not right somewhere. Every policy presented to the community
>> must not move to the next stage until 80 -90% of concerns raised by the
>> community is addressed.(afterall  It's the same community that will
>> implement or be recipients of the policy)
>>
>>
>>
>> Rather we are saddled with a policy that is riddled with issues which the
>> authors have bluntly refused to address and I can only wonder how and why
>> it got to this stage.....this makes me feel that perhaps some people's
>> opinion are more superior to others in the community....Then it is not a
>> community anymore.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aleruchi
>>
>> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>> <https://overview.mail.yahoo.com/mobile/?.src=Android>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 at 11:05 am, Andrew Alston
>>
>> <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi PDWG Appeal Committee.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am seeking clarification – the appeal process says that any decision of
>> the PDWG co-chairs may be appealed and puts a time frame on launching that
>> appeal.
>>
>>
>>
>> I now need clarification – the decision to put a policy into last call –
>> does the time from decision to put the policy into last call start from the
>> moment of pronouncement in the meeting, or from the official announcement
>> on the RPD mailing list.  That is to say – when is the decision considered
>> taken – and this goes to a very key issue about the validity of decisions
>> taken on the floor of a PDP meeting so the answer to this question is
>> urgent – since if the time starts ticking from the moment the decision is
>> taken – then time is short to launch the appeal against the decision – and
>> a delay in answering the question by the PDWG Appeal committee cannot be an
>> accepted reason to not accept a late appeal should this situation arise.
>>
>>
>>
>> The policy actually says – within 2 weeks from public knowledge of the
>> decision – does a pronouncement on the floor constitute public knowledge in
>> a streamed meeting?
>>
>>
>>
>> Secondly – I wish the PDWG Appeal committee to comment on what happens to
>> a last call process if the decision to last call is under appeal pending
>> adjudication.  I would assume that the last call process would be suspended
>> and cannot proceed until the adjudication of the appeal has been completed,
>> but I wish to have a formal clarification on this.
>>
>>
>>
>> And with this email – I am also formally announcing my intention to
>> launch a formal appeal with relevant documentation against the decision to
>> move this policy into last call – and I also am formally reserving my right
>> to appeal against the decision to move the policy past the last call stage
>> should that become necessary – irrespective of the appeal against the last
>> call itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Alston
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <olouss at yahoo.com>  OR
>  aao500 at york.ac.uk <aao500 at york.ac.uk>*
>
>
>
> Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>, Weekly Bulletin
> <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin> UGPortal
> <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/> PGPortal
> <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>

-- 
*Vivien *
*Larus Cloud Service Limited*
p:+852 29888918
f:+852 29888368
e:a.v.p at laruscloudservice.net
w:laruscloudservice.net/
a:B5,11/F,TML Tower,No.3 Hoi Shing Road,Tsuen Wan,HKSAR
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20181206/0854b7bf/attachment-0001.html>