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

[dc at darwincosta.com]

> On 19 Nov 2020, at 07:23, Gaby Giner <gabyginernetwork at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

> 

> Everyone,

> 

>  

> 

> Most of the arguments advanced are irrelevant and completely out of the context of the nature of the demand to recall the co-chairs. Therefore, it would make the whole request null and invalid.

> 

>  

> 

> Part A:

> 

> This part does not have any violations or dishonest acts done by any of the co-chairs. They have had no influence whatsoever on neither the meeting participants nor their reaction (which I don't see the relevance here anyway). This looks like a normal election process to me, not only in this particular field but for everything and everywhere else in the world. Stating otherwise is either naïve or just clueless. Also, protests from a losing party look like a normal reaction to me in an election, some more sore than others as evidenced by recent presidential elections in the US, but I digress. All of the points made in this part are wholly immaterial and should be dismissed.

> 

>  

> 

> Part B :

> 

> 1.)

> 

> I noticed you keep basing your arguments on "it was observed", "Observed by a participant" and "Following the suspicions". Serious accusations should be based on actual proof and precise arguments: not guesses, suspicions, and some anonymous witnesses and vague insinuations. Anyone can come up with scenarios if they are unfounded and unproven, especially if they are about events that have occurred a very long time ago but were not reported at the exact time. What makes it the best moment now? And why didn't you ask to recall the co-chairs back then if you had all the necessary proof? This makes absolutely no sense because if your intentions are as honest as you claim they are, this should have been handled a while ago and not right after the same community reelected one of the same co-chairs.

> 

> 

> 

> Nevertheless, this is a blatant interference in two people's personal life. I hope this behavior won't start encouraging individuals to begin following co-chairs to hotels and anywhere else outside the PPM conference room. We are talking about two people who were brave enough to volunteer to do a job that starts and ends inside the PPM room and in the mailing list. Whatever else they do in their private time shouldn't be of anyone's concern and has nothing to do with their work integrity.

> 

> 2.)

> 

> There isn't anything wrong with the video, and nothing you have stated appears to exist. I think you are the one that interpreted the meeting in a biased way. The co-chairs simply gave recommendations that they think favor the community and are related to managing the PDP, which is totally in their scope. As long as it's not enforced, then no harm is intended nor done.

> 

> 3.)

> 

> The rpd list in an open space where individuals are free to respond, converse, and argue. As long as no offense or attacks are intended, the freedom to defend oneself should not be censored just because "seniors" as you call it, are involved. Particularly when we all know that there has been a serious history of bullying and unfounded accusations on the list. I'm starting to feel weary of this back-and-forth on this matter, but nevertheless it is still worth reiterating—the RPD list is a fair space where all individuals are equal, and everyone's input is welcome. So your personal feelings should not interfere in your judgment on the work and integrity of the co-chairs, nor in your request to recall them.

> 

>  

> 

> Part C :

> 

> 

> 

> As far as I know, the community handled both the online meeting and election process matters. It is not the co-chair's duty to handle this sort of thing but rather the community members by vote. They only had to manage the discussions and take into consideration the opinions, which they correctly did. Therefore, section (1) is utterly wrong.

> 

> 

> 

> For the rest, let me summarize it like this :

> 

> 

> 

> All of this seems very suspicious and makes me think that there is some personal motive or agenda behind this request. If the community was discontented with the current co-chairs, it could have easily prevented Abdul Kareem to be reelected again, which was not the case.

> 

> "The co-chairs continue to ignore the numerous calls to them to take the proposal back for further discussions." This is absolutely not true, and it can easily be proven if you just take the time to go back to the previous thread about the policy, extending its last call, and calling for additional comments. The co-chairs have gone back and forth to satisfy the community's concerns and have extended the policy's discussion time. So did the authors who have managed to resolve every issue and improve the policy, but lately no one seemed to have any new or further objections. Logically this would convince the co-chairs to finally give the go signal for the proposal because it can't be stuck forever with the same people who were raising concerns being suddenly quiet. There is no logic at all, and the procedure was followed according to protocol. Therefore, the argument is not valid.

> 

> 

> 

> Saying that the co-chairs violated the PDP by suggesting amendments to proposals is no violation in itself because the CPM never mentioned explicitly that they are not allowed to do so. The co-chairs again are within their scope.

> 

> 

> 

> The WG is managed by the CPM, which is very clear about the PDP. You have mentioned several times arguments about violations of the PDP etcetera without stating what and where it contradicts what the CPM says. Unless you do that, I don't see the validity of all the related arguments. You can't judge what a violation is based on whether it aligns with your personal agenda or not. There are rules and instructions that have been created to be followed and not subjectively interpreted.

> 

> 

> 

> Finally, I totally understand your discontentment with the whole situation since the transfer policies were in a tough competition and since you are the authors of the other proposal. You can be unsatisfied for as long as you can, but let me say that it is no valid excuse or justification to make an unfounded request to recall the co-chairs whose sole job is to manage the PDP. Not only the arguments are invalid and biased, but there is no actual proof to support the claims and accusations, so I urge the board to look into this urgently and dismiss it. Otherwise, the PDP and the AFRINIC community will no longer be the same, which will be a shame.

> 

Just to comment here in between. I don’t think the main cause here is “discontentment” but rather how this proposal was conducted including last minute changes.

IMHO and someone has mentioned here on this tread “collaborative work between all the authors” - well I would definitely agree that this is something that makes a community a better place. 

My only concern with this proposal and all the changes made it on the last call is that the changes were made at wrong stage of the process. 

Last but not least, remember the discussion between Cohen and Ronald here couple of weeks ago? Well same discussion is running again on the NANOG mailinglist. And the main concern here is: 

Where we conservative enough when all those resources were sold? 
Are we even seeing this resources back anytime soon? Maybe not.... maybe never...
Not to mention how many African startups or unborn ISP(s) will have to fight for v4 addresses when those are not anymore available at Afrinic... We all know where they will have to go to......
I could go even further but I will stop here by saying - What happened in the past can happen again and only time will tell how good or bad this proposal is FOR US. 

As community we need to protect AFRINIC interests instead of individuals benefits.... 

My 2cts.


> Thanks, Gaby

Regards,
Darwin-.


> 

>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:51 AM lucilla fornaro <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Dear Community,

>> 

>> I believe that the multiple accusations towards Co-Chairs, and of course, the current request to recall is suspicious, unfair, and in bad faith. 

>> The recall seems to be a sort of intimidatory attempt of revenge for the mere fact that their proposals did not reach consensus.

>> 

>> I was not a member of Afrinic when Co-chairs were elected, but based on what is written on the recall, I cannot understand how Co-chairs are to be considered responsible for previous Co-chairs' resignation. 

>> According to paragraph 1, I understand authors’ are suggesting an ex-parte communication, once again without documentation. The point is, every single human behavior might be misunderstood, that is why without shreds of evidence, these kinds of accusations should not even be mentioned. 

>> I feel the recall is more personal than based on facts. The recall's main supporters are those authors that have seen their proposals rejected, as well as someone who has lost elections to the current Co-chairs.  

>> The recall is a mere list of accusations of presumable and never confirmed violations perpetrated by Co-chairs since the beginning of their office. Without evidence or a clear and specific reference to the CPM, indictments are inappropriate and meaningless. 

>> 

>> Another sign of the resentment and hostility comes not only from the recall but also from the previous discussions where it was clear that the main goal was to silence some other members of the community to make sure their proposals had no objections. The anger is clear from the way the recall is written and the manipulative language used. Again, the unfounded accusations of usurpation and corruption are unacceptable. Authors accused co-chairs when, in reality, and according to their admission, they failed to file a properly formed appeal. This is a very controversial behavior that nothing has to do with Afrinic and its development. 

>> 

>> To me, these are all relevant elements the Board needs to consider.

>> 

>> 

>> Regards,

>> 

>> Lucilla

>> 

>>> Il giorno mer 18 nov 2020 alle ore 23:03 Ibeanusi Elvis <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com> ha scritto:

>>> Dear Community; Dear All, 

>>> 

>>> After an in-depth review of this current request to recall the Afrinic PDWG co-chairs, I have come to the conclusion that this request is not only biased, it is filled with accusations, personal reasons especially with regards to the event of things of the past month during the last call, attaining consensus and the difficulty in the ratification and implementation of the specific policies due to its conflict with other policies of similar nature. Additionally, this request has no significant proof as well as justification. 

>>> 

>>> Initially, during the policy decision process and the last call period, the co-chairs performed their duties as the representatives of the PDWG, gave every member of the working groups to make their inputs and express their opinions whether in support or against the policy in discussion at the time. Likewise, these opinions, inputs and concerns expressed by the WG were been put into consideration to make the best decision that works best for the AFRINIC RIR and focus on the development and evolution of the internet in the African region. 

>>> 

>>> Additionally, during the AFRINIC Virtual PPM, the idea that the co-chairs made no effort to make sure that the WG understood the Pros and Cons of the policy is outrightly accusation with no profound justification or proof. As I can recall, during the commencement of the AFRINIC Virtual PPM, the co-chairs not only described the each policy up for the discussion but they also pointed out the pros and cons of each policy and as well, gave the authors of the policies the opportunity to elaborately speak on the significance, importance and value of their policies, and how it fits with the grand goal of the RIR which is the development of the internet in the region, which the participants/WG whom participated in the virtual PPM expressed their concerns, opinions and objections.

>>> 

>>> Finally, in addition to the fact that this request is compounded with emotional statements, lack of concrete evidence and biases; with the person behind this request as well as the listed signatories of this request, i can firmly adhere to the ideology that this request was specifically made out of emotional sentiments and self-indulgent feeling of sadness due to the result/outcome and the rightful procedures taken of the well-debated ‘Inter-RIR Policy Proposal’ which had three conflicting proposals. 

>>> 

>>> Best regards, 

>>> Elvis

>>> 

>>>> On Nov 18, 2020, at 21:04, Wijdane Goubi <goubi.wijdane at gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> 

>>>>  

>>>> 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

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> 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

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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/20201119/d88aa1dd/attachment-0001.html>