Search RPD Archives
[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