Search RPD Archives
[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
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Fri Apr 23 13:15:34 UTC 2021
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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list