[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 173, Issue 60

[BINEMO SHADIMIADI Jean Guelord]

Chers membres de la communauté,
Nous voulons avancé ou resté dans un débat sans suite? Où est ce qu'il
existe des règles sans exception ?
Nous sommes dans un cas exceptionnel bien que souvent certains n'accepte
pas. Ce pourquoi nous donnons des propositions pour passer cette étape.
Mais je commence avoir beaucoup de régre par le faite que, j'attend les
gens dire les choses qui font peur ici par exemple. Tout le monde n'a pas
confiance à la communauté que vous semblez prétendre défendre ,
Les autres on peur de l'élection face à face parceque la salle sera remplie
des électeurs fictif selon eux et les autres manque confiance à liste de
mail puisqu'il ya des fictifs ! Alors que voulez vous ? Puisque même nommé
vous avez peur! Est ce que des personnes , des élections où il ya
l'anguille sous Roche ?
Posez vous la question d'où provient le fictifs ? Qui les amène dans la
salle et sur la liste de mails? Il sont là parcequ'il ya aussi défiance des
textes sur l'élection et la manière de participation.
Chers membres de la communauté pensez vous que ce de cette façon que nous
pouvons résoudre ce problème que nous même avons créer ?
Nous avons besoin de mécanisme transitoire pouvant permettre au bon
fonctionnement en attendant les élections qui ne peuvent pas  être
organisée à l' hâte ou en désordre parceque la communauté ou les gens
réclame; mais plus ces élections doivent étre très bien organisé afin de
corriger même les erreurs du passé.
Nous vous rappelons qu'il n'existe pas des règles sans exception, ce
pourquoi on fait de proposition pas pour enfreint le droit fondamental
d'AFRINIC et celui des membres de la communauté mais ce pour résoudre
partiellement le cas ici avant élection.
Je dit très chers membres de la communauté.

Le ven. 12 févr. 2021 à 23:57, <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. Resignation of Policy Development Appeal Committee member

>       (chair at afrinic.net)

>    2. Re: Report from Recall Committee (Gregoire EHOUMI)

>    3. Re: Report from Recall Committee (Owen DeLong)

>

>

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

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:47:58 -0800

> From: chair at afrinic.net

> To: rpd at afrinic.net

> Subject: [rpd] Resignation of Policy Development Appeal Committee

>         member

> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20210212113935.07f05d28 at elandnews.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

>

> Dear Policy Development Working Group,

>

> Mr Jean-Robert Hountomey informed the AFRINIC Board of Directors of

> his resignation from the Policy Development Appeal Committee member

> with immediate effect.  The Board would like to thank Mr Hountomey

> for his work on the Policy Development Appeal Committee.

>

> Regards,

> S. Moonesamy

>

> Board Chair, AFRINIC

>

>

>

>

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

>

> Message: 2

> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 16:25:53 -0500

> From: Gregoire EHOUMI <gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr>

> To: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] Report from Recall Committee

> Message-ID: <9CDEACC6-271C-4534-843C-83646E789161 at yahoo.fr>

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

>

> Hi,

>

> I can see through this post recall discussions, the signs of the usual

> argumentation to non conclusive discussions and disregard to the existing

> rules.

>

> I wish we learnt from past and that the desire to serve this community and

> to make AFRINIC assume its important role, inspires in us the spirit of

> practicalities, compromise and consensus.

>

> Let?s have the board appoint an interim cochair and as voting is being

> considered, starting from next AFRINIC meeting, we organize election by

> ranking voting for the AFRINIC membership.

>

> We then free the WG from voting and it can focus on the policy development

> by consensus.

>

> Best regards,

> Gregoire

>

>

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

>

> Message: 3

> Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 13:56:22 -0800

> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>

> To: "Marcus K. G. Adomey" <madomey at hotmail.com>

> Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] Report from Recall Committee

> Message-ID: <4654900C-078A-4088-B382-E414163CA66E at delong.com>

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

>

>

>

> > On Feb 12, 2021, at 11:22 AM, Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com>

> wrote:

> >

> > Owen,

> >

> > For some reason, you got me wrong?. see below Bold and Italics

> >

> > From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>

> > Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 11:37 AM

> > To: Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com

> >>

> > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:

> rpd at afrinic.net>>; Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:

> fhfrediani at gmail.com>>

> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Report from Recall Committee

> >

> >

> >

> >> On Feb 11, 2021, at 03:20 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <madomey at hotmail.com

> <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com>> wrote:

> >>

> >> Dear PDWG,

> >>

> >> The Co-chairs appointment mechanism was by show of hands of those

> attending the face to face  meeting where the elections were held  until

> this got abused by filling the room with fake participants for the sake of

> voting.

> >>

> >> Using the rpd list as a voter register was never an option since the

> mailing list is open to anyone to participate in policy discussions and

> decisions are made by consensus.

> >

> > The room is supposed to be open to anyone as well, Marcus, so I don?t

> see how that?s different.

> >

> >

> > The PDP is fully open for anyone to participate in both Online

> discussion and face to face.

> >

> > Filling the room with people for just the sake of voting made the

> appointment of cochairs by voting at the face as face infeasible, as well

> as with RPD list.

>

> Apparently not. We succeeded at electing co-chairs in Senegal despite this

> behavior.

>

> While there were multiple accusations in the opposite direction claiming

> that happened in Uganda, nobody

> has presented any hard evidence, so those are questionable at best.

> Despite this, we still managed to elect

> co-chairs there.

>

> We also managed to elect co-chairs on-line.

>

> So history suggests that your statement above is not accurate.

>

>

> >> The Co-chair role is just a voluntary administrative role which

> requires a certain level of experience and most importantly acceptance by

> the working group.

> >

> > And?

> >

> > What is needed here is simply a volunteer with the adequate experience

> known and accepted by the WG to take on this administrative role.

> >

> > This should not be too hard to address. We are not the first or the only

> one appointing WG chair in the world.

> >

> > PDWG has been appointing cochairs since the inception of AFRINIC We face

> a certain evolution of things and must respond to.

>

> Not disagreeing with you, just not understanding how this is relevant or

> what evolution you are referring to.

>

> We simply need to proceed with the election of co-chairs, ideally by first

> coming to consensus around a process for a free and fair election

> that is acceptable to all parties.

>

> If you are worried about stacking the room, then as others have suggested,

> those subscribed to the mailing list prior to the previous election

> is a perfectly fine mechanism to prevent room stacking? You cannot

> retroactively subscribe to the list prior to that date in order to

> manipulate

> the election.

>

> >> Please let us discourage this notion of ?everything must be elections

> and voting? and give a chance to appointment of cochair by acclamation or

> consensus.

> >

> > Marcus, a show of hands in the room is not acclamation or consensus, it

> is a vote.

> >

> > Please read me again. I said let stop this " everything by elections and

> voting" and give chance to consensus and acclamation

> >

> > In different words, please stop "show of hands in the room" and "voting

> with RPD as voter register.?

>

> If you think that the community would support such a change, then the way

> to do so is by amending the CPM to call for co-chair election

> by acclamation or consensus. I will point out that the chairs that were

> just recalled were re-elected by acclamation/consensus in the

> last election, as the opposition dropped out of the race and there was no

> call for a vote of no-confidence or for alternative candidates

> from the community.

>

> Currently, the CPM calls for an election and we should follow that rule

> until such time as it is amended by the will of the community.

>

> Certainly, we should not be choosing this time of crises as an opportunity

> to make up the rules as we go along. Now more than ever is a time

> to stick to the remaining structure of the institution to protect the

> rights of community members and minimize confusion and suspicion.

>

> >> If by miracle consensus can?t be reached on a candidate to serve, we

> defer to the membership to vote and select co-chair.

> >

> > It is not a miracle if we cannot reach consensus. It is an unfortunate

> fact of where we are today.

> >

> > If by membership, you mean the membership of the PDWG, then a vote is

> exactly what most people are proposing.

> >

> > There is no membership defined for the PDWG and once again, there are

> better approach than the PDWG voting?

>

> If you think that?s true, then submit a proposal to amend the CPM in that

> direction and let?s see if the community agrees with you.

>

> Until that time, the rules don?t align with what you are asking for here.

>

> If you think we need a defined membership of the PDWG, then again, I say

> put forth an amendment to the CPM to accomplish that goal

> and let?s see if the community supports it.

>

> > If by membership you mean (as you state below) AfriNIC membership, then

> no? That?s not an acceptable alternative because?

> >

> >

> > You have the right to disagree?

>

> I?m not the only one who disagrees with you on this? The CPM disagrees

> with you and that is the rules by which this body is supposed

> to operate. We just recalled two co-chairs allegedly in part because of

> their failure to follow the PDP as defined in the CPM and

> now as a result your suggestion is to diverge further from the defined

> processes and policies to make up new rules for how we

> appoint co-chairs? I think that?s not only a bad idea, it?s an act of mob

> rule instead of an orderly transition.

>

> >> Either through registered members ( the board ) or resources members

> or  by the full membership.

> >

> > Membership in AfriNIC is open to those that have resources, those that

> are elected to the board, and those that pay some significant annual fee.

> >

> > Membership in the PDWG is open to all who have an interest in

> participating.

> >

> > The PDP calls for the co-chairs to be selected by the PDWG, not the

> AfriNIC membership and there is good reason for this.

> >

> >

> > Oh yes. as there many good reasons for why the PDP does not prescribe or

> prohibit a selection mechanism.

> >

> > So the WG may decide to defer the selection to any other bodies

> including the AFRINIC membership, which a key stakeholder in AFRINIC

> Community.

> >

> > PS: Actually the PDP calls for the co-chairs to be selected by AFRINIC

> community.

>

> Yes? The AFRINIC community. How would you define the AFRINIC community to

> have a more expansive scope than the PDWG? What definition would you apply

> here?

>

> Or is it your intent to claim that there are members of the PDWG who are

> not members of the AFRINIC community and should be disenfranchised from the

> election of the co-chairs of the committee?

>

> My argument would be that the PDWG and AFRINIC community are nearly

> synonymous, but that by definition, the AFRINIC community is most certainly

> a superset of the PDWG participants.

>

> > Are not ARIN AC members elected by ARIN general membership?

>

> Yes, and I?m quite certain numerous people, including John Curran himself

> could verify that I have long sought to change that fact and open the

> election of the AC to the broader community. I do not hold ARIN up as an

> example of perfection. It is a well functioning RIR with a vibrant and

> active community and a generally well functioning and collegial policy

> development process and community, but that does not mean that I

> necessarily agree with everything or feel that everything there is an ideal

> way to function.

>

> Are you arguing that because I come from a region where the election of

> the leadership is flawed in the way you propose that I?m somehow expected

> to think that AFRINIC should embrace the same flawed process?

>

> > Please do not disenfranchise so much of the community so arbitrarily.

>

> Owen

>

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

> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> URL: <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210212/32abb7cf/attachment.html

> >

>

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

>

> Subject: Digest Footer

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

>

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

>

> End of RPD Digest, Vol 173, Issue 60

> ************************************

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210213/d30e0fd2/attachment-0001.html>