Search RPD Archives
[rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS
Sunday Folayan
sfolayan at skannet.com
Tue Nov 24 12:14:12 UTC 2020
Hello Wijdane,
I am not for or against the recall, but the endless suggestions at
variance to the CPM will not help.
The CPM is very clear as to the process for handling this issue, and we
should stop throwing any argument under the guise of disagreement.
(Bullets simply for easy reading)
*3.5 Conflict Resolution**
** - 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.**
*
For now, let us follow the laid down process.
If this is not acceptable to you, then initiate a modification of the
policy, to allow the recall or re-affirmation of Chairs via some form of
balloting.
Allow the Board act in accordance with the CPM by appointing a recall
committee.
Please leave the recall committee to determine fairness, based on the
submitted justification.
We have always learnt from all actions. We will learn from the process,
and we will do it better next time.
Sunday.
On 11/22/20 12:00 PM, Wijdane Goubi wrote:
> Dear community,
>
> As you can all notice, there is a huge disagreement going on
> concerning the request to recall the co-chairs, which many have
> pointed out to be biased and unjust. Thus, I believe it would only be
> fair to organize a vote about whether this request shall proceed on
> not. We have always proved as a community to be efficient in solving
> issues through the most democratic and fair ways and I believe this a
> crucial moment where we need to do so as well.
>
> Jeopardizing the reputation and position of two individuals shouldn’t
> be as easy as it is, otherwise, it will encourage individuals in the
> future to abuse the request of recall whenever there is a personal
> motive. Such a serious decision of recalling the chairs should not lay
> at the hand of six people out of a big community whose voice matters
> as equally. I believe this will not only be fair to the co-chairs but
> also to both parties who seem to argue or disagree with the request.
> Regards
>
> Le ven. 20 nov. 2020 à 15:10, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com
> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> a écrit :
>
> I am glad to see the same and very repeating only argument against
> this Recall Request is that some (not all) of the authors are also
> authors of 'competing proposals' (as if the PDWG was a battle of
> proposals) and trying to make up as if this was something forbidden.
>
> Everything that was done in both the Appeal and the Recall Request
> is done strictly in the line with what the CPM allows so there is
> nothing else others that are moaning about can do other than wait
> for the output.
>
> Please leave with the Board to do its job. It's entirely up to
> them to consider if the justifications given make sense or not.
> Fernando
>
> On 20/11/2020 10:58, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:
>> Dear community,
>>
>> As Andrew pointed out: "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 problem here is that there are no valid justifications to
>> support the present recall request. As many of the members
>> including myself already pointed out, this recall request is
>> unjustified as it is not based on objective facts. Rather, this
>> request is largely unfounded and supported by biased arguments
>> and bitter emotional accusations. No tangible evidence has been
>> presented to support the case. There is also a serious conflict
>> of interest as some of the signatories happen to be authors of a
>> competing transfer proposal, while others were denied the
>> position of a chair in the previous elections.
>>
>> This request is also generally done in bad faith. It's text
>> refers to a number of appeals to justify its legitimacy. Yet,
>> these appeals were all launched by the very same people who
>> signed this recall request. In my view, this is an unfair move
>> that seeks to bend the PDP to the agendas of a few. Such behavior
>> undermines the legitimacy of the whole process and should not be
>> tolerated. Thus, I contend that this recall request lacks enough
>> justifications to be considered legitimate.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ekaterina
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, 11:23 lucilla fornaro
>> <lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com
>> <mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto: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: * akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng
>> <mailto:akin.akinfenwa at uniosun.edu.ng>;
>> lordaikins at gmail.com <mailto:lordaikins at gmail.com>;
>> lordaikins at yahoo.com <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:dc at darwincosta.com>
>> <dc at darwincosta.com <mailto:dc at darwincosta.com>>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 November 2020 11:04
>> *To:* Gaby Giner <gabyginernetwork at gmail.com
>> <mailto:gabyginernetwork at gmail.com>>; rpd >> AfriNIC
>> Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> >
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto: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/20201124/abb7df4e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list