[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

Mon Oct 19 15:07:19 UTC 2020

I am pleasantly surprise that the Co-chairs have extended the last call on
the Resource Transfer Policy. This is laudable, I want to support this
action. It clearly shows that the Co-chairs have a listening ear and ready
to guide PDWG to achieve consensus on this very important policy.

I hope we achieve some milestone with this extension, this of course is
without prejudice to an appeal, which is unnecessary.

Simply
Daniel

On Oct 18, 2020 5:52 PM, "Frank Habicht" <geier at geier.ne.tz> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 18/10/2020 11:49, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:
> > Dear Gregoire,
> > Please note that we have gone through your appeal and we are not in any
> > way afraid of your appeal.
> > Please feel free to even appeal this reversal.  We took this decision
> > based on what the community has asked us to do.
>
> Just to clarify:
> I believe many community members requested the policy proposal to
> not_go_into_last-call and to not_be_considered_consensus-achieved.
>
> That means the intention of these voices is to get the policy back to
> mailing-list discussion, and the intention is not to extend the
> last-call period.
>
> That is at least my position.
>
> I acknowledge that here are lots of voices on this list who argue the
> opposite, for the policy proposal to get approved by chairs (and as such
> the WG) and to go to board ratification.
> There's an appeal against that.
>
> Also I would like to note that in my understanding some of the voices
> wanting the proposal to proceed do advocate to not follow PDWG
> processes. Surely without bad intent. And I could be wrong. I know some
> already know that I am.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
> > We are here to listen to
> > the genuine need of the community while following the CPM correctly and
> > to the best of our ability to avoid anarchy.
> >   We have consistently asked you to categorically point out ANY section
> > of the CPM we have breached. Up till today and for weeks now you only
> > kept on saying *we Co-chairs have breached the CPM without ANY proof *to
> > back it up only the fact that we have refused to dance to your personal
> > tune. We have a lot of respect for you just like we do for every member
> > of the community but please respect yourself so that you can be a good
> > example to the generation behind you.
> > You asked us to follow the precedence from previous Chairs, we did by
> > following your advice. Only for you to now start singing another song or
> > have you forgotten s*o quickly that chairs in the past have had reasons
> > to change their decisions?*. Oh is it because we refuse to dance to your
> > personal tune that you decided to circulate falsehood about the
> > breach of the CPM on the mailing list?
> > Ordinarily, we would have ignored your noise, but sometimes if we don't
> > tell the truth. falsehood can be regarded as the truth.
> > *Please point out clearly any Section of the CPM we have breached*.
> > thanks
> > Co-Chair
> > PDWG
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 9:32 PM Gregoire EHOUMI
> > <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr <mailto:gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear co-chairs,
> >
> >     You create a lot of confusion and you don't follow the PDP. Which
> >     section of the PDP allows extension of the last call after you have
> >     ended it ?
> >
> >     You also seem to ignore that according to appeal ToR section 5.1.e,
> >     a failure to respond to or conclude discussions within
> >      one week of a request from a complainant by the
> >     Chair(s) shall be considered sufficient grounds under
> >     sections 5.1(c) and 5.1(d).
> >     So your decision made on the 7th October was challenged as from 8th
> >     October. You did not conclude satisfactorily to the requests from
> >     the complainants within the following week. So the appeal filed on
> >     the 15th is valid as your decision stands and can’t be reversed.
> >
> >     Please stop this continuous violation of the rules on which AFRINIC
> >     operates.
> >
> >     Failure to obey should be considered as perjury.
> >
> >     Regards,
> >     --
> >     Gregoire
> >
> >>     On Oct 17, 2020, at 12:02 PM, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE
> >>     <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>>
> >>     wrote:
> >>
> >>     Dear colleagues,
> >>
> >>     Despite our belief that this policy has covered almost all of the
> >>     concerns raised especially the major objections, we would like to
> >>     give the community more time to discern after considering the
> >>     community's feedback on the consensus declared on the  Resource
> >>     Transfer Polic.
> >>
> >>     We, the co-chairs, have changed our decision and opt to extend the
> >>     last call for one more week for prudence's sake.
> >>
> >>     Thank you.
> >>
> >>     Co-Chair
> >>     PDWG
> >>
> >>
> >>     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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> >>     https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >>     <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201019/4de07381/attachment.html>