Search RPD Archives
[rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS
Daniel Yakmut
yakmutd at googlemail.com
Tue Nov 24 19:36:43 UTC 2020
Good, we will hold our fire awaiting the following of the CPM.
Thanks for the guide.
Simply,
Daniel
On 24/11/2020 1:14 pm, Sunday Folayan wrote:
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201124/91dbbc21/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list