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

[Fernando Frediani]

Hello Jaco
Thanks for this excellent and necessary lesson.

Every time I see the word democracy trying to be used in PDWG I feel the 
same lack of understanding by some.
Some need to understand that just by a certain number of people voicing 
their wish for something isn't just enough to make something happen as 
things are not decided by a majority of voices.

Fernando

On 23/04/2021 09:56, Jaco Kroon wrote:

>

> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> 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/cb7b6a14/attachment-0001.html>