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

[Daniel Yakmut]

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-0001.html>