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

[Noah]

Hi Eddy and Chair

Can AfriNIC perhaps through the Stakeholder Engagement department increase
its efforts on running quartely webinars for new members of our community.
I have been reading emails in recent weeks from folks who I believe to be
new members of the PDWG who could do with some capacity building.

This will go on to reduce the level of ignorance among the new members of
the community especially around the Policy Development Process.

Some sort of orientation program similar to the one AfriNIC provides to its
fellows each year who attended physical meetings but instead run it
remotely via webinars.

In my humble opinion.

Noah

On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, 16:26 Fernando Frediani, <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:


> 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>

> <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> 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.

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

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

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://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/20210423/9f4ed36c/attachment-0001.html>