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

[rpd] Report from Recall Committee

Anthony Ubah ubah.tonyiyke at
Wed Feb 10 21:14:17 UTC 2021

Dear community,

The recent events have proved that there are several confusing and unclear
issues in the PDP which has led to a divided community, leaving members
lost and the workgroup adrift.
I’d like to shed some light on the Recall committee’s recent report, which
from my point of view requires more clarifications.

1: I couldn’t help but notice that the recall committee has failed many
times during the report in specifying what has been exactly violated in the

2 : C4 is quite illogical since it is the co-chair's job to give a detailed
report about which policies have reached consensus and which have not, and
this is exactly what they have done. I believe the three Inter-RIR resource
Transfer policies being in a competition is irrelevant to the community
consensus (you can find the report referred to in this link: )

3 : C6 : The appeals number shouldn’t have mattered (especially since the
majority of the appeal is filed by the same person for "God-knows-why").
Only the result should. And for now, two appeals have been dismissed, which
proves that the Co-chairs' judgments and actions were fair and right. As
mentioned, four of the appeals were filed by the same person. The only
concerning thing in this situation is that the one person that has made all
of the appeals couldn’t handle not passing all of his policies, and instead
of working on improving them, has decided to appeal all of them at once. I
feel the recall committee shouldn’t have given this statement and judgment
without waiting for all of the results of the appeals. Making matter worse,
the recall committee has acted prematurely pertaining to the matters in
relation to the appeal.

4: Once again, the co-chairs have given a report explaining their reasons
for declaring consensus or non-consensus on proposals discussed at
AFRINIC32 by stating the objections and supporting arguments for each
policy and the suggestions for improvement. So to sum things up, no
specific violations have been stated from the recall committee to make a
final decision on the co-chairs' recall, and the reasons stated are
subjective and are not necessarily proof of misconduct.

5 : C.7 , C.8 , C12 What is the committee referring to by saying
“violation of expected norm” repeatedly? The only violations that should be
acknowledged are CPM and PDP violations. Situations differ from one meeting
to another, and so should the co-chairs' reactions, based on the
community’s demands and needs. Expected norms are not binding on the
co-chairs, if the so-called expected norms are supposedly binding, this
should have been stipulated under the CPM. This is not the case. This route
taken by the Recall Committee is dangerous and the vague definition and
proposed resolution will become a dangerous precedent moving forward! To
date, we are left hanging to what is in actuality an “expected norm” here.

My 2 cents

*Best Regards,*

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list