[rpd] Community Feedback

[Sunday Folayan]

Dear Lucilla,

According to the Collins Dictionary [1], "Determine the Outcome" - The 
outcome of an activity, process, or situation is the situation that 
exists at the end of it.

Clearly, there is no ambiguity. the Recall Committee determines whether 
the Co-Chairs stay or go.

Sunday.

1. 
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/determine-the-outcome


On 12/3/20 2:18 PM, lucilla fornaro wrote:

> Dear Jaco,

>

> I am referring to section 3.5 of the CPM, specifically to "The recall 

> committee shall investigate the circumstances of the justification for 

> the recall and determine the outcome."In my opinion, CPM does not 

> suggest a clear explanation on what we have to consider as the outcome 

> of the appeal committee, whether the co-chairs will be removed or if 

> the request will advance.

>

> Regards,

>

> Lucilla

>

>

>

> Il giorno gio 3 dic 2020 alle ore 21:51 Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za 

> <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>> ha scritto:

>

>     Hi Lucilla,

>

>     1.  I personally never asked any author to withdraw anything.

>     2.  I believe the current wording is perfectly clear; as such:

>     3.  Could you please clarify - by way of reference to the CPM text

>     - clarify what doubts (uncertainty, ambiguity) do you read in the

>     text as it's written?

>

>     4.  I did state my support that I don't see an emergency here and

>     that both the proposal and the recall process should follow the

>     existing established processes.

>

>     Kind Regards,

>     Jaco

>

>     On 2020/12/03 14:07, lucilla fornaro wrote:

>>     Dear Jaco,

>>

>>     considering the contest, clearly, we are not facing any of the

>>     emergencies you mentioned. Remaining closer to the purpose of the

>>     discussion, the current recall process opens the door to several

>>     doubts. The incompletion of the call request section is already

>>     creating issues and can potentially create unfair situations that

>>     in the interest of the community we should try to avoid and fix

>>     in advance. The proposal can help us and there are no reasons to

>>     ask the author to withdraw it.

>>

>>     Regards,

>>

>>     Lucilla

>>

>>     Il giorno gio 3 dic 2020 alle ore 06:16 Jaco Kroon

>>     <jaco at uls.co.za <mailto:jaco at uls.co.za>> ha scritto:

>>

>>         Hi Lucilla,

>>

>>         Please clarify the emergency here?  Will a war break out if

>>         this policy doesn't get changed sooner than the normal

>>         process?  Will someone die?  What's the emergency here?

>>

>>         Kind Regards,

>>         Jaco

>>

>>         On 2020/12/02 15:22, lucilla fornaro wrote:

>>

>>>         Dear Community,

>>>

>>>         Section 3.6 of the CPM says: “The process outlined in this

>>>         document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is

>>>         for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this

>>>         document is required”.

>>>         The author should not withdraw this important proposal for

>>>         two reasons: firstly, it is valuable, and secondly, if not

>>>         approved it will automatically expire.

>>>         I believe this is exactly the moment for the chairs to

>>>         change the process of the PDP, considering that we do find

>>>         in the case of an emergency.

>>>

>>>

>>>         Regards Lucilla

>>>

>>>         Il giorno mer 2 dic 2020 alle ore 21:48 Ibeanusi Elvis

>>>         <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com <mailto:ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>>

>>>         ha scritto:

>>>

>>>             Dear community,

>>>

>>>             Adding to the ongoing discussion on this mailing list,

>>>             besides the fact that this Request to Recall the PDWG

>>>             Co-Chairs is based on personal grievances with the

>>>             co-chairs and emotions, I don’t see a form of fast

>>>             tracking this ongoing recall process and like the

>>>             co-chairs stated, the so-called "promotion or

>>>             fast-track” is of no benefit to them. They (the

>>>             co-chairs) just performed their administrative function

>>>             and in the principle of fairness, openness, and

>>>             transparency, brought it forward to the RPD community

>>>             for discussion. Likewise, the personal attack needs to

>>>             stop, saying that the co-chairs are imitating the

>>>             behavior of an “AFRICAN DICTATOR” whom wants to do

>>>             everything they can to stay in power including adjusting

>>>             the country’s constitution went too far and very

>>>             disrespectful and an insult to their integrity and

>>>             personality. Also, a disregard to the long hours and

>>>             dedication that they have put into the service of this

>>>             AFRINIC organization.

>>>

>>>             Similarly, proposing a withdrawal of a draft policy

>>>             proposal is not functional as the CPM 3.4.1 elucidates

>>>             that first, "During the development of policy, draft

>>>             versions of the document are made available for review

>>>             and comment by publishing them on the AFRINIC website

>>>             and posting them to the rpd at afrinic.net

>>>             <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> mailing list.” which is

>>>             currently happening. Also, the same CPM 3.4.1 states

>>>             that "A draft policy expires after one calendar year

>>>             unless it is approved by the AFRINIC Board of Directors

>>>             as a policy. Hence, the idea of suggesting a withdrawal

>>>             should end as well as the personal attacks. If you have

>>>             an personal issues or grievances with the co-chairs,

>>>             find a way to settle it with them.

>>>

>>>             Regards,

>>>             Elvis.

>>>>

>>>>             I'm a stickler to rules and procedures and not

>>>>             interested or have a vested interest. Therefore

>>>>             consider my notes below as advisory to guide your

>>>>             decision as I do not want to argue for it against.

>>>>

>>>>             Aside from providing a context you have given in your

>>>>             earlier email, I must call your attention to this Latin

>>>>             word *“no one should be a judge in their own cause”*.

>>>>             It is one of the cardinal rules of natural justice that

>>>>             no one should act as a judge a case in which they have

>>>>             a personal (vested) interest.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>             Secondly, I wish to refer you to section 3.41. and 

>>>>             3.4.2. of the CPM as posted below before you invoke

>>>>             sections 3.6 which has lots of ambiguity which I have

>>>>             noted in my several correspondence on this mailing

>>>>             list. There  is legal standing of a section of a law or

>>>>             CMP needs to stand as procedures.

>>>>

>>>>             Let me try to clarify with a little LAW 101 classroom

>>>>             explanation based on the principle of antecedent law. 

>>>>             This simply means *the Nature and Evolution of the

>>>>             Rules of Procedure and Evidence. is a doctrine of

>>>>             interpretation where a court  interprets a qualifying

>>>>             clause to refer to the immediately preceding words or

>>>>             phrases.*

>>>>             In the light of the above, you must first satisfy the

>>>>             following in this order BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY CONCENSUS

>>>>             DECISION :

>>>>

>>>>             1: Publish on the website which has not been done or

>>>>             referred to in your email (See CMP section 3.4.1 for

>>>>             advice as seen below)

>>>>             2.  The draft policy shall be available for review for

>>>>             at least four weeks before the next Public Policy Meeting.

>>>>             3: */CONDITIONAL Statement but best practice before any

>>>>             meeting or consensus decision is made: /*The Working

>>>>             Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC to provide an

>>>>             analysis (technical, financial, legal or other), of the

>>>>             impact of the draft policy proposal.

>>>>             4.  Each policy proposals must be place on an agenda

>>>>             for a PUBLIC MEETING. (This section must be satisfied

>>>>             before you proceed to interpret section 3.6)

>>>>             5.  The agenda of the meeting shall be announced on the

>>>>             Resource Policy Discussion mailing list at least two

>>>>             weeks prior to the meeting. (Are we having another PPM

>>>>             before the end of this year?)

>>>>

>>>>             Please note that my comments are observations and

>>>>             advisory  to enrich out understanding of the CPM and

>>>>             it's interpretation.

>>>>

>>>>             Regards

>>>>

>>>>             Caleb Ogundele

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>             Extract of CPM Referenced

>>>>             =============================================================================

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>                   3.4.1 Draft Policy Proposal

>>>>

>>>>             During the development of policy, draft versions of the

>>>>             document are made available for review and comment by

>>>>             publishing them on the AFRINIC website and posting them

>>>>             to the rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> mailing

>>>>             list. Each draft policy is assigned a unique identifier

>>>>             by AFRINIC and the AFRINIC website shall also contain

>>>>             the version history and the status of all proposals.

>>>>

>>>>             The draft policy shall be available for review for at

>>>>             least four weeks before the next Public Policy Meeting.

>>>>             The author(s) shall make the necessary changes to the

>>>>             draft policy according to the feedback received. The

>>>>             Working Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC to provide

>>>>             an analysis (technical, financial, legal or other), of

>>>>             the impact of the draft policy proposal.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>                   3.4.2 Public Policy Meeting

>>>>

>>>>             The draft policy is placed on the agenda of an open

>>>>             public policy meeting. The agenda of the meeting shall

>>>>             be announced on the Resource Policy Discussion mailing

>>>>             list at least two weeks prior to the meeting. No change

>>>>             can be made to a draft policy within one week of the

>>>>             meeting. This is so that a stable version of the draft

>>>>             policy can be considered at the meeting.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>             On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 10:51 AM Murungi Daniel

>>>>             <dmurungi at wia.co.tz <mailto:dmurungi at wia.co.tz>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>                 +1

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>                 > On Dec 2, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Nishal Goburdhan

>>>>                 <nishal at controlfreak.co.za

>>>>                 <mailto:nishal at controlfreak.co.za>> wrote:

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > On 2 Dec 2020, at 6:29, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 >> Dear PDWG Members,

>>>>                 >> We want to acknowledge the proposal on Co-Chair

>>>>                 Recall process

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > please pause.

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > consider that you are asking this WG if they want

>>>>                 to fast track a proposal that you (the co-chairs

>>>>                 and policy officer) have neither:

>>>>                 > #1 - disclosed to this working group;  sorry, but

>>>>                 some random gmail account posting a proprietary

>>>>                 binary to this list, is *NOT* a policy submission.

>>>>                 those of us that do not open attachments from

>>>>                 random  strangers are waiting for the text version

>>>>                 to be posted to this list (as is the norm)

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > #2 - given an identifier to yet

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > without even knowing the contents of the PDF,

>>>>                 there are procedural steps involved in submission

>>>>                 that you have not yet completed.  it’s entirely

>>>>                 unclear to me how you expect people to assess the

>>>>                 value of this proposal when they have not yet had a

>>>>                 chance to read it.  and without assessing this

>>>>                 value, it’s inconceivable that you would even

>>>>                 consider fast tracking this.

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > please, stick to the process.

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > —n.

>>>>                 >

>>>>                 > _______________________________________________

>>>>                 > RPD mailing list

>>>>                 > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>                 _______________________________________________

>>>>                 RPD mailing list

>>>>                 RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>             -- 

>>>>             *Ogundele Olumuyiwa Caleb*

>>>>             /*muyiwacaleb at gmail.com <mailto:muyiwacaleb at gmail.com>*/

>>>>             /*234 - 8077377378*/

>>>>             /*234 - 07030777969*/

>>>>             _______________________________________________

>>>>             RPD mailing list

>>>>             RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

>>>

>>>             _______________________________________________

>>>             RPD mailing list

>>>             RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

>>>

>>>

>>>         _______________________________________________

>>>         RPD mailing list

>>>         RPD at afrinic.net  <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

>>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201203/e812cf46/attachment-0001.html>