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

[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-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list