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

[Wijdane Goubi]

Dear community,



I have read the recall document and have found it based on very subjective
and personal reasons, which makes sense in a way because of how the last
policy that has reached consensus, was in a constant competition with other
related proposals.

First of all, as far as I can remember, the co-chairs have always asked the
community to give decent explanations of what raises their concerns, but
instead, there were constant personal attacks, unrelated subjects and
arguments and no more unaddressed concerns.

Dragging the co-chairs and accusing them of some serious accusations just
because one proposal reached consensus and others did not, proves again
that this recall is based on personal guesses and speculations with no
discrete, distinguished and notable reasons.

Our community seems not to be, sadly enough, a stress-free working
environment. The co-chairs always have to deal with targets set by the
community, and *these targets are often hard to achieve,* which creates a
lot of pressure on them.

I substantially believe that the co-chairs are not taking a side and are
perfectly respecting one of the most important values in the CPM which is
fairness. They care enough to assess their performance by respecting the
CPM, Not taking sides but actually discussing each policy on its own and
most importantly giving enough time to solve the community’s concerns.

I strongly believe that what we do need more is to be objective in the way
we judge things, and actually stop having unfair opinions in order to have
more clarity, lack of bias, and often transparent obviousness of the truth.

Cheers,



Le mer. 18 nov. 2020 à 10:03, Taiwo Oyewande <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com> a
écrit :


>

> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201118/c2fb8d31/attachment-0001.html>