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

[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-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list