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


Sami Salih sami.salih at
Thu Apr 22 08:42:56 UTC 2021

Salam PDWG,
I believe some of our brothers missed an essential part of the consensus. This word never means all people are satisfied - or as used in the Internet community-, it is not about the people at all. We are considering issues raised by the people in the group, it is the group's right to discuss every point raised and give a sound justification to come out with a decision. I believe, the PDWG exercised very good experience in dealing with chairs election, so please let us focus on the core business of the group. Repeating the same points, again and again, will never count as an issue.

In conclusion, as this email was addressed to the appeal committee, we need their reply, and it will be final. I would like to see the appeal committee decision asap to save our time and make the issues relaxed.


Sami Salih
From: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 11:21 AM
To: Emem William <dwizard65 at>
Cc: pdwg-appeal at <pdwg-appeal at>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at>

Voici encore une autre preuve tangible de l'incompréhension et de l'ignorance des principes de bases du fonctionnement du PDP, par certains nouveaux membres de cette communauté.

De grâce, chers nouveaux, prennez le temps d'apprendre et d'expérimenter les principes de base, avant de vous jeter tête baissée dans les discussions, avec les autres membres plus expérimentés que vous dans cette communauté.

Refusez d'être les porte-voix de certains brockers, cachés dans cette communauté et qui tirent les ficelles de la manipulation des jeunes étudiantes et étudiants de notre communauté.

Fernando a su bien démontrer le fonctionnement du principe d'appel contre les décisions prises dans le PDP. S'il vous plaît suivez et apprenez auprès de ces personnes expérimentées.

La sélection des nouveaux co-chairs fut un processus conduit entièrement par les membres directs de cette communauté, avec le membre du staff comme secrétaire, le Chairs n'a fait que constater et pris acte des résultats.

Cet Appel que vous interjetez est une atteinte direct aux droits de tous ceux qui ont contribué dans le processus de sélection de ces nouveaux co-chairs.


Here is yet another tangible proof of the misunderstanding and ignorance of the basic PDP principles, by some newcomers of this community.

Please, dear newbies, take the time to learn and experience the basics, before jumping headlong into the discussions with other more experienced members than you in this community.

Refuse to be the spokespersons of certain brockers, hidden in this community, who are pulling strings of the manipulation of the young students in our community.

Fernando was able to demonstrate how the principle of appealing against decisions taken in the PDP works. Please follow and learn from these experienced people.

The selection of new co-chairs was a process driven entirely by the direct members of this community, with the staff member as secretary, the Chair only took note of the results.

This Appeal that you are bringing is a direct violation of the rights of all those who have contributed in the process of selecting these new co-chairs.


Le mer. 21 avr. 2021 à 05:18, Emem William <dwizard65 at<mailto:dwizard65 at>> a écrit :

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.



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


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


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


Name and email address of complainant.

Emem William

dwizard65 at<mailto:dwizard65 at>

Names of complainants.

1. Olamide Andu (olamideandu at<mailto:olamideandu at>)

2. Yusuf Abdurahman Adebisi (adebc007 at<mailto:adebc007 at>)

3. Emem Ekpo William (dwizard65 at<mailto:dwizard65 at>)

4. Sunday Ayuba (sundayayuba8 at<mailto:sundayayuba8 at>)

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!

Emem William.
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list