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

[Timothy Ola Akinfenwa]

At least this is an objective way forward for me, and yes of course *with
the exclusion of the co-chairs and complainants* as earlier clarified. The
main hassle now is getting neutral parties that will serve in the Recall
Committee devoid of any bias and intimidation to finally bring this issue
to a close.

🕊✌
------------------------------
Engr. Timothy Ola AKINFENWA Senior System Programmer
Information Management & Technology Centre,
Osun State University, P.M.B. 4494, Osogbo, Osun State, Nigeria.
+234 (0) 80 320 70 442; +234 (0) 80 988 97 799
*Email: * <http://lordaikins.comxa.com/signature/#>
akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng; lordaikins at gmail.com; lordaikins at yahoo.com
*Website:*  www.uniosun.edu.ng <http://uniosun.edu.ng/>
<http://www.facebook.com/lordaikins>  <http://www.twitter.com/lordaikins>
<http://www.instagram.com/lordaikins>
<https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TimothyOlaAkinfenwa>

"Be happy with what you have and are, be generous with both, and you won't
have to hunt for happiness." ~ William E. Gladstone


On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:00 PM Andrew Alston <
Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:


> Up until now, I’ve stayed pretty silent on this, because quite frankly – I

> have no issues with the chairs and if they stay or go makes very little

> difference in my life.

>

>

>

> That being said – the one thing I do care about is the process.

>

>

>

> So – let’s look at that.

>

>

>

> Section 3.5 of the consolidated policy manual states:

>

>

>

> ·  Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any time,

> upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC Board of Directors.

> The request must be supported by at least five (5) other persons from the

> Working Group. The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall

> committee, excluding the persons requesting the recall and the Working

> Group Chairs. The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of

> the justification for the recall and determine the outcome.

>

>

>

> So – it is at the discretion of those who requested the recall to do so –

> that much is clear – if we don’t like that – change the PDP.  The board

> however, is now obligated under the PDP to appoint a recall committee, as

> per the above point, that includes the working group chairs and the

> complainants, and that committee then reviews, deliberates and delivers a

> verdict.  My reading of that is that the committee appointed shall be

> appointed from the community – though that may well be a subjective reading

> of the text. I would hope that the board would endeavor to appoint

> individuals entirely divorced from this mess on the list who can be

> objective and impartial in their review of the available evidence and then

> render a verdict based on hard fact and evidence.  But whichever way this

> happens – we have a policy process – and while we may or may not like the

> outcomes of the policy process – the process is sacrosanct and must be

> observed and followed, and if we don’t like what the process says – the PDP

> process  allows for us, as members of the PDP, to change that process

> through the rough consensus process.

>

>

>

> Andrew

>

>

>

>

>

> *From:* dc at darwincosta.com <dc at darwincosta.com>

> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 November 2020 11:04

> *To:* Gaby Giner <gabyginernetwork at gmail.com>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource

> Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>

> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS

>

>

>

>

>

> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201119/3cef7e84/attachment-0001.html>