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

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

Blaise Fyama bfyama at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 15:53:55 UTC 2020


Beau message de paix cher Kakel.
Blaise FYAMA
Msc, PhD.
Professeur Associé
Secrétaire Général Académique Honoraire/UL
Doyen de la Faculté des Sciences Informatiques/UPL
Doyen a.i de la Faculté Polytechnique/UPL
Chef de Département Génie Electrique/ESI-UNILU
Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU
Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK
Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET
Tel: +243995579515
Numéro O.N.I.CIV: 00460

MSc, PhD.

Associate Professor

Honorary Academic Secretary General / UL

Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science / UPL

Dean a.i of the Polytechnic Faculty / UPL

Head of Department of Electrical Engineering / ESI-UNILU

IT Service Manager / Polytech-UNILU

IT Consultant BIT / PAEJK

Member of International Research Conference IRC/WASET

Phone: +243995579515

O.N.I.CIV number: 00460


Le jeu. 26 nov. 2020 à 09:06, Kakel Mbumb <kakelmbumb at gmail.com> a écrit :


> Bonjour à tous,

>

> Je pense qu'il est important que les textes soient respectés par rapport

> aux procédures à mener mais surtout qu'il nous faut éviter de lancer des

> recours ou appels pour des intérêts personnels ou par vengeance mais plutôt

> dans un souci de gain communautaire.

>

> Une hiérarchisation du travail de la communauté est en application et cela

> doit suivre son cours mais sachons qu'il n'est pas logique de retarder les

> choses alors qu'il ya tant de priorités à résoudre.

>

> Soyons UNIS..

>

> Cordialement.

>

> Le mar. 24 nov. 2020 à 20:37, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a écrit :

>

>> Send RPD mailing list submissions to

>> rpd at afrinic.net

>>

>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit

>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

>> rpd-request at afrinic.net

>>

>> You can reach the person managing the list at

>> rpd-owner at afrinic.net

>>

>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific

>> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."

>>

>>

>> Today's Topics:

>>

>> 1. Re: REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS (Daniel Yakmut)

>>

>>

>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>

>> Message: 1

>> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 20:36:43 +0100

>> From: Daniel Yakmut <yakmutd at googlemail.com>

>> To: rpd at afrinic.net

>> Subject: Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS

>> Message-ID: <981190ff-d084-3863-d309-c04f550be251 at gmail.com>

>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

>>

>> 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 ??15:10, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com

>> >> <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> a ?crit?:

>> >>

>> >> 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 na?ve 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 ??10:03, Taiwo

>> >>> Oyewande <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com

>> >>> <mailto:taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>>

>> >>> a ?crit?:

>> >>>

>> >>>

>> >>> 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

>> >>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20201126/a4c08c60/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list