[rpd] APPEAL AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF CONSENSUS DECLARED BY THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM AND THE BOARD ON THE SELECTION OF PDWG CO-CHAIRS

[sisoko daze]

Hmm….

Now that an appeal is made, I personally think the appeal make sense too
actually.

I don’t think it’s an issue about whether the appeal is only applicable if
it's against the Chair or Board, because the Board has taken up the Chair’s
position temporarily in an unprecedented way. So i think it’s natural that
an appeal can still be taken against the Board’s consensus (because Board
taking the role of Chair temporarily).

Due to the unprecedented fact that the Board has stepped in to declare
consensus in the stead of co-chairs, this has twisted the CPM in a way.
Therefore, since it’s been twisted to accommodate the Board’s action(taking
Chair’s position temporarily), then I think it’s fair that we should use a
more purposive approach to interpret the CPM(since it’s been twisted).
Because I think the more important point is that appeals can still be made
against a consensus, irrespective of whether the consensus was made by
Board or Chair or anyone who is temporarily facilitating the PDWG in the
absence of a Chair.

I’m all for an experienced Chairs but I must say the way the consensus was
achieved is very questionable though.

I think we should just let the Appeal Committee work on this appeal since
it’s already been appealed. Plus, I don’t see what’s there to lose if the
consensus was achieved legitimately because the Appeal Committee should
naturally deem it the same. I think that’s the least check-and-balance that
can be done.

Kirk out.

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:18 PM Emem William <dwizard65 at gmail.com> wrote:


> *Dear Appeal Committee,*

>

> Please check  the attachment for our appeal.

>

> Thank you!

>

>

> *Subject : Appeal against the confirmation of consensus declared by the

> Policy Liaison Team and the Board on the selection of PDWG Co-chairs*

>

>

>

> Dear Appeal Committee,

>

>

>

> I am appealing against the confirmation of consensus declared by the

> AFRINIC team and the Board on the selection of PDWG Co-chairs, made on the

> RPD mailing list, on April 9th and April 11th.

>

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013018.html)

>

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013052.html)

>

> I consider that the actions of the Board of Directors to self-declare

> consensus over the PDWG matter in selecting the new co-chairs is done

> outside of their scope of power and prerogatives.

>

>

>

> *Date of the appeal :* April 19th, 2021

>

> *Date of the decision made by the Policy Liaison Team*

>

> (1) 3rd April 2021

>

> (2) 9th April 2021

>

> *Date of the decision made by the Board of Directors*

>

> 11th April 2021

>

> *f) Reference to an announcement of decision which is being appealed*

>

> (1) 26th March 2021, Eligibility criteria imposed by Policy Liaison Team

>

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012768.html)

>

>

>

> (2) 9th April 2021, Policy Liaison Team announced consensus is achieved

>

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013018.html)

>

>

>

> (3) 11th April 2021, Board Chair declared consensus

>

> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013052.html)

>

>

>

> *Name and email address of complainant.*

>

> Emem William

>

> dwizard65 at gmail.com

>

>

>

> *Names of complainants.*

>

> 1.    Olamide Andu (olamideandu at gmail.com)

>

> 2.    Yusuf Abdurahman Adebisi (adebc007 at gmail.com)

>

> 3.    Emem Ekpo William (dwizard65 at gmail.com)

>

> 4.    Sunday Ayuba (sundayayuba8 at gmail.com)

>

> The following appeal addresses the “fake consensus on the selection of the

> co-chairs” declaration, which according to the CPM, cannot be done by

> anyone else besides the chair. Yes In this situation we agreed that AFRINIC

> team should serve as secretariat but this team went ahead to selectively

> implement decisions even when there was no consensus.   The board’s

> interference with the matter signifies that the bottom up process no longer

> exists. Therefore, this appeal should serve the Appeal Committee in taking

> into account a very important point, which is the fact that the board has

> no right in declaring consensus.

>

> Based on the Board’s action of declaring consensus on the selection of

> the co-chairs, which is done outside of their prerogatives, it is safe to

> conclude that the declaration of consensus is illegal as it is not within

> the prescribed power and prerogatives of the Board of Directors. The Board

> of Directors should have referred to and comply with the stipulated terms

> of the AFRINIC’s constitution and the CPM and ensure that any action that

> is taken by the Board of Directors is done consistently and in compliance

> with the stipulated terms of the AFRINIC’s Constitution and the CPM, which

> was not the case. The declaration of the consensus by the Board of

> Directors shows that the Board of Directors have acted above and beyond

> their prescribed power and prerogatives.

>

>

>

> As for the list of requirements and qualifications imposed by the Policy

> Liaison Team, It is vital to note that they were never stipulated under the

> CPM. By simply adding on a list of requirement and qualification proves

> that the Policy Liaison Team have acted arbitrarily and with blatant

> disregard to the terms and procedures which are clearly stipulated under

> the CPM.

>

>

>

> Based on the above, I urge the Appeal committee to look into this serious

> matter and resolve this appeal by standing with what is right.

>

>

>

> Thank you!

>

>

> Regards,

> *Emem William*.

> _______________________________________________

> 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/20210422/895cbef0/attachment-0001.html>