Search RPD Archives
[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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list