Search RPD Archives
[rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS
lucilla fornaro
lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 10:21:30 UTC 2020
Dear Community,
Many pointed out the Board now needs to appoint an impartial recall
committee, and that’s what I hope.
>From my perspective, the recall lacks objective, accurate, and impartial
evidence, and it seems to be the consequence of resentment and
disappointment.
"Conclusions" reports a clear example of what I am talking about:
“The co-chairs continue to ignore the numerous calls to them to take the
proposal back for further discussions."
This is exactly the opposite of what happened! Co-chairs after a member’s
request extended the last call to allow further discussions. This is a
fact, and I cannot understand how it is possible to misrepresent it. To me,
this is bad faith, and I see no reason for this recall to exist. It is just
the last of several attempts to intimidate the community and co-chairs.
Regards,
Lucilla
Il giorno gio 19 nov 2020 alle ore 22:48 Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <
akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng> ha scritto:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201120/ed6df397/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list