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

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

Kakel Mbumb kakelmbumb at gmail.com
Fri Nov 27 06:31:20 UTC 2020


Merci Professeur Fyama,

Nous vous remercions d'apporter vos contributions scientifiques et
professionnelles dans la communauté en dépit de tous vos engagements
professionnels.

Cela nous inspire à vous prendre en exemple pour aller au delà des intérêts
personnels dans ce qui nous RÉUNIT ici.

Cordialement.

Le jeu. 26 nov. 2020 à 16:54, <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 (Frank Habicht)

> 2. Re: Policy proposal (Ekaterina Kalugina)

> 3. Re: REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS (Blaise Fyama)

>

>

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

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:44:03 +0300

> From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>

> To: rpd at afrinic.net

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

> Message-ID: <3528fdce-a708-a55c-e1a8-2f124bac7b80 at geier.ne.tz>

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

>

>

>

> On 26/11/2020 15:26, Fernando Frediani wrote:

> ...

> > "3.5.3 - 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.*"

>

> in my opinion "the outcome" clearly means *the outcome of the recall*.

>

> Frank

>

>

>

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

>

> Message: 2

> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:36:23 +0100

> From: Ekaterina Kalugina <kay.k.prof at gmail.com>

> To: Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at skannet.com>

> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <RPD at afrinic.net>, Abdulrauf

> Yamta <yamta.a at gmail.com>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy proposal

> Message-ID:

> <

> CAHS7WUB0XFqoHYySVShDiipLDrpR0hNJMK06zRpEvroLfQxS7g at mail.gmail.com>

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

>

> Dear Sunday, dear community,

>

> First of all, I would like to point out that I see no reason to withdraw

> the policy proposal completely, although some minor editorial changes and

> corrections of stylistic and grammatical mistakes might be necessary.

>

> In regards to its content, a proper discussion from the side of the

> community is due.

>

> >From my side, I do not think that the proposal adds operational burdens to

> the board. Rather, in my view, it makes the process of recall more clear

> and explicit. The board is already making a decision on whether or not each

> request is duly justified and worth appointing a committee. The present

> policy just spells out this process and adds a deadline for the board to

> make its decision. I think it is a necessary addition as having the board

> entertain all recall requests without assessing the justifications can

> prove to be a serious waste of the AFRINIC resources in the long run.

>

> Moreover, setting a recall committee is necessary even if the board decided

> that a request is justified. The board here only determines whether or not

> the request has legitimate grounds, while the committee is the one

> conducting a thorough investigation and making a final report on the issue.

>

> Secondly, I believe that the evaluation of the appointed committee members

> by the community is necessary to ensure the committee's integrity and

> ascertain that there are no conflicts of interest. When it comes to a 6

> week waiting period, I agree that it is excessive and perhaps could be

> shortened as to streamline the process.

>

> Thirdly, I believe that it is very important that this proposal outlines

> the community's participation in every step of the recall process. The

> AFRINIC is governed through a bottom up process, so it makes sense that the

> ultimate decision-making power shall remain in the hands of the community.

> I don't think it would be fair for the recall committee to make such a

> decision unilaterally. It would rather make more sense for them to create a

> comprehensive report where they outline all facts and conclusions that is

> then brought forward to the community for a deciding vote.

>

> Overall, in my view, this policy contains import clarifications to the

> recall process. In addition, it aims to reinforce AFRINIC's governance

> values in the sense of keeping the decision making power within the

> community.

>

> I believe this proposal is a valuable addition to the CPM and thus im

> looking forward to hear more feedback on this regard from the side of the

> community.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Ekaterina

>

> On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, 09:54 Sunday Folayan <sfolayan at skannet.com> wrote:

>

> > Good Morning,

> >

> > Apologies for a long email, but ... If it has to be, it has to be and up

> > to us.

> >

> >

> > In order to ensure that we focus on what is helpful, let me point out a

> > couple of issues with this proposed policy.

> >

> > Referring to the CPM

> >

> > 3.4 Policy Development Process

> > *Anyone can submit a proposal. Policy proposals are submitted to the

> > Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (rpd at afrinic.net <

> rpd at afrinic.net>)

> > by the author*. AFRINIC will provide administrative support and assist

> > the author(s) in drafting the proposal if requested. AFRINIC shall also

> > provide relevant facts and statistics if requested during the discussion.

> >

> > One can see that:

> >

> > 1. The submission was sent to rpd at afrinic.net ... This is OK

> >

> > 2. The submission was addressed to the Co-Chairs ... This is Unnecessary

> >

> > 3. Addressing the Co-Chairs could suggest that they must acknowledge ...

> > Not really

> >

> > 4. The Co-Chairs must trigger discussions ... Not according to the CPM.

> >

> > 5. The Co-Chairs not acting immediately, could kill a proposal ... Not at

> > all

> >

> >

> > Having outlined the above, let us deal with the substance of the proposal

> > - co-chair recall.

> >

> >

> > The substance of the current recall provision in the CPM is:

> >

> > - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee

> >

> > - The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the

> > justification for the recall

> >

> > - The conclusion of the recall committee shall determine the outcome

> >

> >

> > It is important to therefore note that:

> >

> > - The Appointment of the Recall committee is at the discretion and

> > wisdom of the AfriNIC Board.

> >

> > - Beyond appointing a recall committee, the AfriNIC Board does not even

> > need to know the merit or otherwise of the recall

> > - The recall committee's work/report, does not require the approval of

> > the AfriNIC Board.

> >

> > - The entire process does not have any input from the rpd.

> >

> > - The process has never been tested.

> >

> > - The recall committee's modus Operandi is a black-box. Hence until it

> > is tested, it is not wise to modify it

> >

> >

> > The substance of the proposed policy:

> >

> > - The AfriNIC Board shall investigate the circumstances of the

> > justification for the recall

> >

> > - The investigation will include community consultations

> >

> > - The AfriNIC Board will junk the recall, if it sees no justification

> > for the recall

> >

> > - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall then appoint a recall committee

> >

> > - There is a time waster - Name Challenge process embedded therein.

> Pick

> > 9 members one at a time for 6 weeks. One Year is gone!

> >

> > - If the Recall committee Stands, it will go ahead and determine if a

> > recall is necessary

> >

> > - If a recall if not necessary, its work is done.

> >

> > - If a recall is necessary, it will submit a report to RPD, that will

> > then vote whether to recall or not

> >

> > - A Supermajority vote (70%) is needed to affirm the recall

> >

> > - Where the vote is not obtained, the recall also fails.

> >

> >

> > The substance of this draft proposal seeks to alter the pillar of minimum

> > Board involvement, without clearly articulating why.

> >

> > Indeed, it goes ahead to burden the Board with more work.

> >

> > Especially With:

> >

> > (A) The Board shall first investigate into the recall request within 4

> > weeks upon receiving the recall request and decide whether the recall

> > request is justified or not, after having consulted with the community?s

> > opinion in the mailing list.

> >

> >

> > This is at total variance with the spirit of the current process and

> > provisions that simple gives the Board an administrative duty of

> appointing

> > the independent committee that will then go ahead to determine the

> > appropriateness of the recall request.

> >

> > The proposal brings the Board into the role of being the RPD umpire, and

> > determining the merits or otherwise of the recall request, before setting

> > up a committee. Why the need to setup a committee, if it will have

> > determined the merit or otherwise of the recall proposal?

> >

> > All other details of the proposal follow the same pattern ... solving a

> > perceived problem, without really paying attention to the underlining

> > principle that allows flexibility and creativity, without allowing

> process

> > capture.

> >

> > Indeed, proceeding on pushing this proposal through, will take at least

> > One Public Policy meeting, and therefore will not meet the needs of the

> > current situation.

> >

> > In my humble opinion, I think the Author should withdraw the proposal

> > which was definitely submitted in haste, wait for the play of the current

> > situation, see the determination of the matter, learn from it, and then

> use

> > the experience to make a proposal that will be better ... but definitely

> > not with all those details in the draft proposal that are laced with

> traps

> > and mines, too many for me to begin to enumerate herein.

> >

> > Volunteer work is extensive, demanding and requires a lot of input. Haste

> > in not one of those ingredients.

> >

> > Do have a nice day.

> >

> > Sunday.

> >

> >

> > On 11/24/20 2:56 PM, Abdulrauf Yamta wrote:

> >

> > Dear Co-Chairs

> > Please find attached a policy proposal named AFRINIC Co-Chair Recall

> > process. In view of some current development, and the need to have a

> recall

> > process properly defined we seek that the chairs should seek that this

> > proposal be discussed immediately.

> > Thanks

> >

> > Abdulrauf *Yamta*

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://

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

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > RPD mailing list

> > RPD at afrinic.net

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

> >

> -------------- next part --------------

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201126/c4944400/attachment-0001.html

> >

>

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

>

> Message: 3

> Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:53:55 +0200

> From: Blaise Fyama <bfyama at gmail.com>

> To: Kakel Mbumb <kakelmbumb at gmail.com>

> Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net>

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

> Message-ID:

> <

> CAPehF5f7dcsQ_ZDSvZAH-fWLb4B68eJo2upLBwy4MSXTkhvaqQ at mail.gmail.com>

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

>

> Beau message de paix cher Kakel.

> Blaise FYAMA

> Msc, PhD.

> Professeur Associ?

> Secr?taire G?n?ral Acad?mique Honoraire/UL

> Doyen de la Facult? des Sciences Informatiques/UPL

> Doyen a.i de la Facult? Polytechnique/UPL

> Chef de D?partement G?nie Electrique/ESI-UNILU

> Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU

> Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK

> Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET

> Tel: +243995579515

> Num?ro 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 ? 09:06, Kakel Mbumb <kakelmbumb at gmail.com> a ?crit :

>

> > Bonjour ? tous,

> >

> > Je pense qu'il est important que les textes soient respect?s par rapport

> > aux proc?dures ? mener mais surtout qu'il nous faut ?viter de lancer des

> > recours ou appels pour des int?r?ts personnels ou par vengeance mais

> plut?t

> > dans un souci de gain communautaire.

> >

> > Une hi?rarchisation du travail de la communaut? 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 priorit?s ? r?soudre.

> >

> > Soyons UNIS..

> >

> > Cordialement.

> >

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

> >

> >> 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

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201127/68df90c7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list