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

[Paschal Ochang]

Hello all.

It's very simple. Has an appeal been lunched ? The answer is yes. So let
the Appeal Committee do their job. It's simple.

On Thursday, April 22, 2021, Haruna Umar Adoga <hartek66 at gmail.com> wrote:


> Hello,

>

>

> If we decide to proceed with the confirmation of the newly ‘selected’

> Co-chairs, which some say were chosen based on a ‘consensus’ by the PDWG,

> it will be a step in the wrong direction.

>

>

> I personally do not subscribe to the idea of wasting the community’s time

> on frivolous issues but an appeal has been made against the confirmation of

> the Co-chairs and it needs to be addressed.

>

>

> We cannot and should not keep supporting this narrative as PDWG members,

> that whenever someone or a group of persons question an act/decision that

> needs clarification, we tend to push things under the carpet intentionally

> by throwing all sorts of tantrums rather than facing the issues in an

> upright manner.

>

>

> Cheers,

>

> Haruna.

>

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:30 AM Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:

>

>> In the Spirit of Law, what is not authorised, is forbidden. Don't fool

>> people here please. An other waist of time to the  Community . The

>> Co-chairs selection is over. Now we invite Co-chairs to take the place and

>> start working, in order to avoid such kind of waist of time. Please, let

>> move forward.

>>

>> --

>> Arnaud

>>

>> Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 02:38, lucilla fornaro <

>> lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> a écrit :

>>

>>> Hello everyone,

>>>

>>>

>>> As we can all see, it is true that the CPM (3.5) openly mentions the

>>> appeal against the co-chairs, but it doesn’t forbid other forms of appeals.

>>> Furthermore, the appeal reports a serious matter that should be properly

>>> investigated. This is the only way to go through it.

>>>

>>>

>>> In particular, I believe that the declaration of the consensus by the

>>> Board of Directors goes beyond their authority.

>>>

>>> Therefore, I support this appeal.

>>>

>>>

>>> Lucilla

>>>

>>> Il giorno mer 21 apr 2021 alle ore 14:18 Emem William <

>>> dwizard65 at gmail.com> ha scritto:

>>>

>>>> *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

>>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> RPD mailing list

>>> 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

>>

>

>


-- 
Kind regards,

Paschal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210422/bf080f37/attachment-0001.html>