Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Taiwo Oyewande taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com
Wed Nov 18 09:02:32 UTC 2020



I will like to believe that the recall request sent to the board is to permit a form of election for the community to either vote to remove or retain the serving co chairs. As the board didn’t vote/ appoint the cochairs therefore, they have no powers to remove them.

This recall seems like an attempt to hijack the community through the back door. I can see that the petition was signed by
1. one person who lost elections in Kampala to the current Co-chairs,
2. authors of competing proposal with our Inter RIR policy,
3. a member whose right was suspended after he violated the CoC.
4. A member who shamefully made frivolous allegation in Uganda using a fake profile among others.
This list of petitioners makes me wonder if this is a personal vendetta.

The petition to me borders around the co chairs using initiative to take decisions. It seems that some party “the power brokers” are aggrieved that they are not been consulted before the co chairs make decisions

Another funny allegation is that the co chairs wasted the time of the community by not passing policies in Angola - this is a misleading argument as discussing policies to improve them is never a waste of time. Unfortunately when they decided to make sure that polices are resolved during the last PPM. The exact same people complained.
I guess the co-chairs can never do right in their sight.

Finally, as one of the authors of the competing proposals in Angola. I will like to clearly state that the co-chairs sent all authors of competing policy proposals to try and consolidate the policies. My co-author and i had several meeting with Jordi but the authors of the third proposal totally refused the offer to join heads to produce one proposal. This now makes me wonder how they derived the claim that the co-chairs tried to force the consolidation when they where not even present.
I will like to clearly state that the co-chairs did not interfere in our meetings. Hence the call on stage in Angola to find out our resolve from the said meeting.

My input.

Kind regards.
Taiwo


> 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




More information about the RPD mailing list