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

[Jaco Kroon]

Hi Okoye,

I think you're confusing the concept of democracy and a consensus based
approach.

In a democracy, the majority (or largest individual sub group) get what
they want, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong.  The premise
behind a democracy is two-fold:  those that we appointed will action 
in
the form of an autocracy that which they have pitched in their run-up
(failure to do so generally leads to unrest, and even if they follow
exactly that if it's not to the betterment of the larger group will at
least be met with resistance by the minority), and will stick to exactly
that and not become power hungry, and the larger believe is that the
majority knows best and are right in their believes.  Of course this 
is
an idealogical/philosophical statement, for which there are many other
wordings, the base premise is:  the majority rules, right or wrong.  A
democracy only works if the elected leaders of the majority has the best
interests of community as a whole at heart, otherwise it becomes an
oppression of minority by the majority.

In a consensus based approach, it's more strict, the majority cannot
simply enforce their arbitrary will.  But at the same time the minority
can get their way.  It's about addressing problems in such a way that
the right thing will happen, irrespective of emotional influence and
state of mind.  In some cases we can delegate to a democratic based
decision (ie, vote) *if we so choose*.  As was the original proposal
until I filed two motions:

1.  That we select two of the three eligible candididates (as per the
criteria that the group have conceded to which eliminated the other
three candidates, and AK based on the fact that he was the previously
recalled chair).  AK subsequently pulled out leaving us with only two
eligible candidates, and based on no valid objections that was raised,
they were then on the basis of consensus elected.

2.  That the appointments are made for one and two years respectively,
but there were objections against this, so as I've got it this was
accepted, but this could still potentially be changed at the PPM such
that one term will end during the PPM and the other will run for a
further year.

Against the first item there were (as far as I could tell) no valid
objections, just emotional outbursts, against the latter there were some
"this is a variation of the accepted CPM" which could be deemed to be
valid, and I also conceded that I've got no objection if this decision
is postponed to the PPM, but it does make things more difficult for the
newly elected chairs since their position going forward is unclear.

My request is thus in short to not confuse a democracy with a consensus
system(much more strict than a democracy since one person that raises a
*valid* objection against a proposal can stop the thousand, in theory). 
But in the same sense, the thousand cannot stop the one unless they can
raise a valid objection.

The PDWG is not a democracy.

Kind Regards,
Jaco

On 2021/04/23 14:12, Okoye Somtochukwu wrote:

> Dear Community, 

>

> In my opinion, I believe we should have a chance to appeal and contest

> the boards' decisions on the selection of co-chairs. A democratic

> government does not function when citizens are deprived of their right

> to free speech, protests tec. in the same vein, we should also have a

> say in appealing against the decision made by the board against the

> co-chairs.

>

> Also, The appeal against the board on the selection of the co-chairs

> is valid. Although it is only rational that we look into this issue

> and try to assess the situation as it is. This is because, although

> the board has acted in carrying out its duties and that of the

> co-chairs, I don't feel it is right for the board to have a consensus

> regarding the selection of the co-chairs.

>

> In all our doings, we must treat each other's duties and positions

> with the utmost respect and do our best to move the community forward.

>

> Thank you.

>

> Sent from my iPhone

>

>> On Apr 23, 2021, at 1:57, Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:

>>

>> 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

>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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

>>         <mailto: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 <mailto: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 9^th and April 11^th .

>>

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

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

>>

>>                 (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013052.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 19^th , 2021

>>

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

>>

>>                 (1) 3^rd April 2021

>>

>>                 (2) 9^th April 2021

>>

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

>>

>>                 11^th April 2021

>>

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

>>                 being appealed*

>>

>>                 (1) 26^th March 2021, Eligibility criteria imposed by

>>                 Policy Liaison Team

>>

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

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

>>

>>

>>                  

>>

>>                 (2) 9^th April 2021, Policy Liaison Team announced

>>                 consensus is achieved

>>

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

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

>>

>>                  

>>

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

>>

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

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

>>

>>                  

>>

>>                 *Name and email address of complainant.*

>>

>>                 Emem William

>>

>>                 dwizard65 at gmail.com <mailto:dwizard65 at gmail.com>

>>

>>                 * *

>>

>>                 *Names of complainants.*

>>

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

>>                 <mailto:olamideandu at gmail.com>)

>>

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

>>                 <mailto:adebc007 at gmail.com>)

>>

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

>>                 <mailto:dwizard65 at gmail.com>)

>>

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

>>                 <mailto: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 ofdeclaring 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 <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

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

>>

>>             _______________________________________________

>>             RPD mailing list

>>             RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

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

>>

>>         _______________________________________________

>>         RPD mailing list

>>         RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>

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

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

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> -- 

>> Kind regards,

>>

>> Paschal.

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210423/006bc118/attachment-0001.html>