[rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS

[Taiwo Oyewande]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Nov 2020, at 07:31, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> 
> Speaking strictly as myself, not representing any organization or company:
> 
> I couldn’t agree more. This recall petition is entirely specious and without merit.
> 
> As to the supposed reasons and evidence supporting the removal of the co-chairs, the following problems exist with the PDF provided to the community (this may not be a comprehensive list, but it certainly covers enough to indicate that the PDF is not a basis for removal of the co-chairs):
> 
> A:    There is nothing prohibiting the recruitment of people to participate in AfriNIC, in fact
>    it is encouraged.
> 
>    I fail to understand what bearing the resignation of the co-chair and failure to elect a
>    co-chair in Dakar has on the legitimacy of the current chairs. Indeed, the supposed
>    controversial election refers to Kampala which really only applies to one of the two
>    current serving co-chairs as the other was recently re-elected in the AfriNIC virtual
>    meeting.
> 
>    While I agree that singing a national anthem of one of the co-chairs in celebration of
>    the election result is a bit uncouth, I see no relevance here. It occurred after the
>    election was over and therefore could not have altered the outcome of the election.
> 
>    The “protests” were the sour grapes of a small (but vocal) minority of the community.
> 
>    As to “Finding 1”, this is outside of the control of the co-chairs that were elected
>    in Kampala and thus has no bearing on the discussion here.
> 
>    As such, I submit that section A is wholly without merit and is a blatant attempt to
>    malign the current co-chairs without substance.
> 
> B:    Paragraph 1 is nearly impossible to parse, but if I understand the authors’ intended
>    meaning, they are claiming that the co-chairs were somehow taken to a hotel for
>    some form of improper ex-parte communication. Further, they appear to be claiming that
>    they asked the board to investigate this allegation, but the board didn’t do so and
>    they therefor have no evidence to support this claim.
> 
>    There is so much wrong with this that it is difficult to dignify it with a response,
>    nonetheless, I will do so here. First, merely taking the co-chairs to a hotel hardly
>    seems like a nefarious act. I, myself have been known to enjoy a meal or a drink or two
>    with co-chairs of various RIRs. Surely the co-chairs are not denied a social life merely
>    because of their position.
> 
>    There is no evidence that any sort of undue influence was exerted through any ex-parte
>    communication that may have occurred during this alleged outing as indicated by the
>    authors’ own words “The board did not act as nothing was reported back.”
> 
>    Paragraph 2 I reviewed the video referenced.
> 
>    I did not see evidence of bias. I did not see evidence of incapability or incompetence.
> 
>    I saw a good faith effort to be courteous and collegial with the authors of two competing
>    policies and an effort to see if the authors were willing to work together to consolidate
>    their policies. I saw a lack of cooperation by the both policy authors which the chairs
>    attempted to navigate.
> 
>    I will admit that the chairs may have pushed a little harder than I think was appropriate
>    towards encouraging the authors to work together, but that’s a difficult judgment call
>    in the circumstance and it’s quite clear that the chairs stopped well short of the point
>    of overcoming any intransigence by the authors. As such, I see no harm to the PDP in their
>    conduct.
> 
>    While I don’t agree with all of the decisions made by the co-chairs, especially the AS0
>    ROA proposal, as I stated on the list at the time, I recognize the legitimacy of their
>    decision and the fact that people of good conscience can view the same set of facts and/or
>    the same issues differently. The default position should be no consensus. A co-chair that
>    is not confident that there is strong community consensus for a proposal should absolutely
>    declare no-consensus and that is exactly what happened here. No consensus is not fatal or
>    even really harmful to a proposal. It just means that the authors need to continue their
>    efforts to build consensus among the community either through further discussion on the
>    mailing list or by modifying the proposal to address the objections. In some cases, it may
>    be that a proposal simply isn’t something the community wants. I don’t think that applies
>    to AS0 ROAs, but in such a case, the rejection of the proposal is a perfectly valid outcome.
> 
>    I believe the failure of the AfriNIC community to include a mechanism for the community to
>    express that a proposal should not be recycled or further discussed because it is simply
>    not wanted by the community is one of the biggest problems in the AfriNIC PDP. That failure
>    is the main reason that proposals like Resource Review plagued the community for so long.
> 
>    The authors of this so-called recall petition admit that their appeal of the co-chairs
>    decision was unsuccessful because they failed to file a properly formed appeal, yet they
>    mention this as if it is somehow an indictment of the co-chairs.
> 
>    Time spent discussing proposals is not wasted, even if the proposals aren’t advanced.
>    Such a claim is contrary to the spirit and intent of the PDP and the values of the RIR
>    system. From what I saw, the major obstacle to the resolution of objections was more about
>    the intransigence of the authors than anything under the control of the co-chairs.
>    Notably, the group filing this petition contains many of the most intransigent proposal
>    authors in the region.
> 
>    While I do not believe it appropriate for co-chairs to tell someone to “retire” or “go away”,
>    and as such won’t defend the general tone of either of the messages referenced, I think they
>    stopped short of such an outright suggestion as the text in the PDF would indicate. I also
>    think that the repeated attacks on the co-chairs by a vocal minority including (perhaps even
>    led by) the so-called “senior members of the community” in question leading up to it makes the
>    somewhat visceral response understandable, though still not ideal. Taking the messages out of
>    context is disingenuous at best.
> 
>    Finding 2 is utterly specious. The co-chairs are gaining experience with the PDP and WG
>    procedures and I see no evidence that they’ve done any worse running the WG than many of
>    their far less controversial predecessors. If their supposed “lack of neutrality” rises
>    only to the level of “suspicion” and you cannot present actual evidence or even a solid
>    claim that it exists in fact, then that is hardly a basis for removal. You’ve shown
>    no evidence that bias exists and therefor no basis for your claim that said bias impacted
>    the meeting. I fail to see how the concerns of some or the fears of others are relevant
>    here. We should be seeking facts and evidence regarding any suspected wrongdoing, not
>    concerns and fears.
> 
> C:    Was there more that the co-chairs could have done in the time before AfriNIC-32? Almost
>    certainly yes. OTOH, nearly everyone has dropped some balls in one way or another during
>    that time. The world was on tilt most of that time period as a result of a virus which
>    is still running rampant in many parts of the world. Many of us have lost friends and/or
>    loved ones and almost all of us at least know someone who has lost a friend or a loved one.
>    There is nobody who can say they remain untouched by this current circumstance and to
>    expect perfect execution of even the most experienced and capable of co-chairs would be
>    an unreasonable request under the circumstances.
> 
>    The PDF authors present no evidence to support their claim that the co-chairs had selected
>    a particular proposal to push forward and their supposed reference to some form of demonstration
>    at AfriNIC-31 is without foundation or evidence.
> 
>    Their further claim (1) that the co-chairs did nothing is also presented without evidence.
>    The email cited is a message from Eddy describing the plan of record. It provides no information
>    about any action or inaction in the preceding process by the co-chairs.
> 
>    Claim (2) that staff took the lead ignores any interactions which may have occurred
>    off list between the co-chairs, staff, and/or the board regarding coordination and
>    planning for the possibility of a virtual AfriNIC meeting possibly including a PDWG
>    meeting. The larger questions of the AfriNIC meeting were out of scope for the co-chairs
>    and expecting them to solve the PDWG meeting questions prior to obtaining answers from
>    staff regarding the questions around the larger meeting (which are the questions authors
>    refer to when claiming staff took the lead) is absurd.
> 
>    Regarding claim (3), the incumbent co-chair is not responsible for the behavior of other
>    candidates and any such expectation that the co-chair would perform his/her duties in a
>    manner more to the liking of the authors or candidates in question would be inappropriate
>    in the extreme. So far, I have seen little evidence of poor or improper performance of
>    their duties by the co-chairs in question. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of
>    any legitimacy for an attempt to remove them from office. Neither of the emails cited
>    indicates any sort of expected change in behavior by the co-chairs.
> 
>    Claim (4) that the decisions made by the co-chairs at AfriNIC-32 were “all rejected and
>    appealed” is interesting to note that all of those appeals were submitted by a single
>    proposal author. Further, since the Appeals committee has given themselves until
>    February 18, 2021 to conclude and publish the last appeal result and has not provided
>    any conclusions as yet (In fact, one of the dates suggested for publication was
>    December 22, 2021, but I suspect that’s a typo for December 22, 2020), it’s really
>    hard to know whether these appeals are simply a concerted effort by a vocal minority
>    to discredit the co-chairs or whether they have actual merit. As such, using this fact
>    as a basis for removal of the co-chairs is premature at best and potentially manipulative
>    and dishonest at worst.
> 
>    Claim (5) is not supported by the email referenced (or authors need to be more specific
>    about where in the email they see evidence supporting their claim as I do not see it
>    in reviewing that email). The video shows a co-chair struggling a bit with language, but
>    overall delivering a concise and well reasoned description of the situation with each
>    policy and reasonable determinations of consensus or not based on the record available.
>    Disagreeing with the co-chairs judgment of consensus alone is not justification for a
>    recall. Each issue that I heard the co-chair mentioned was an issue that had been brought
>    up in the discussion either in person or on the mailing list. Poor memory on the part of
>    the PDF authors should not be grounds for removal of a co-chair.
> 
>    Claim (6) mostly reiterates claim (4) and offers nothing novel or useful to the record.
> 
>    Claim (7) does not provide sufficient information and should be clarified by the PDF authors
>    prior to being evaluated for merit (or lack there of).
> 
>    Claim (8) is not accurate. The amendments proposed by the co-chairs had been previously
>    requested by multiple members of the community and directly addressed objections raised
>    by the community. The co-chairs asked the proposal authors if they were amenable to the
>    amendments requested in order to achieve consensus and authors agreed. There is little
>    actual and no effective difference between this and the co-chairs determining
>    non-consensus based on the objections rectified by the amendments followed by authors
>    making the amendments in question, followed by a determination of consensus (which is
>    entirely within the PDP). It is interesting that the authors of this accusatory PDF
>    argue on one hand that co-chairs wasted time by not moving things forward and then here
>    complain that authors made efficient use of time by getting author consent for amendments
>    requested by the community and declaring consensus on the proposal with those amendments.
> 
>    Claim (9) This appears to be a generally factual claim, but I’m not sure how it is relevant
>    as a claim of malfeasance or incompetence on the part of the co-chairs.
> 
>    Claim (10) lacks foundation or evidence. I’m not sure how "objections forcing the authors
>    to make a lot of substantial changes” is in violation of the PDP… It’s my belief that the
>    PDP is intended to allow the community to insist upon needed changes in a proposal throughout
>    the process.
> 
>    Claim (11) also lacks foundation or evidence. If there is a basis to a claim that the
>    so-called editorial changes were not, in fact, editorial in nature, then that basis
>    should be explained in the document and supporting evidence should be provided. The
>    mere filing of an appeal (or even two appeals) is proof of nothing other than the
>    fact that someone didn’t like the outcome.
> 
>    Claim (12) It’s unclear what “submission” to whom is expected in Claim (12), nor do I see
>    anything in the PDP that requires the co-chairs to await the decision of the appeal
>    committee prior to defending their decisions to the community. One one hand, PDF authors
>    are claiming that the co-chairs ignore community input and on the other they are now
>    complaining that the co-chairs decided to solicit additional community feedback given
>    the apparent controversy over their decision. It’s unclear to me which provisions of
>    the PDP this is alleged to violate and authors make no citations of the relevant PDP
>    sections to which they vaguely refer in the phrase “more violations of the PDP”.
>    Further, co-chairs are elected to implement and manage the PDP. They are not responsible
>    for defending the PDP (nor do I believe that the PDP is under attack except possibly by
>    the proposal to modify it which did not achieve consensus). In fact, defending the
>    PDP against that proposal would be a violation of the PDP in my opinion, so once again,
>    authors of the PDF have erred.
> 
>    Because virtually the entire basis for Finding 3 is refuted above, it is also my considered
>    opinion that Finding 3 is entirely specious and without merit. There is no evidence presented
>    that the co-chairs violated the PDP, nor is there any indication that they made “unilateral”
>    decisions inconsistent with the record of community input. They have not demonstrated a lack
>    of fairness. The question of neutrality is subjective at best and there’s no clear evidence
>    of bias presented. The policy preferences expressed by the co-chairs are consistent with the
>    community feedback received in the record overall and do not provide any clear indication
>    of bias. Yes, they are contrary to the opinions of the PDF authors, but so is much of the
>    feedback received from the community on a variety of issues.
> 
> Conclusion:
> 
>    The vast majority of the claims made in this document are entirely specious and without
>    merit. I hope that the board will dismiss this action as the frivolous and baseless
>    attack on the PDP that it represents and I hope that we can all move forward on a more
>    collegial basis. I hope that the PDF authors will stop using Donald Trump as a role model
>    and recognize that bullying is ultimately a losing strategy.
> 
> Owen
> 
>    
>> On Nov 17, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Ekaterina Kalugina <kay.k.prof at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear community,
>> 
>> It is my firm belief that the current request to recall the co-chairs is not only incredibly unfounded, biased and generally done in bad faith but is, in fact, in violation of some of the basic values AFRINIC stands for.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd