Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Community Feedback
Sunday Folayan
sfolayan at skannet.com
Thu Dec 3 15:31:11 UTC 2020
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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list