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
Mark Elkins
mje at posix.co.za
Fri Apr 23 16:45:37 UTC 2021
What an excellent idea! Meet the faces behind the emails 😁
On 4/23/21 6:32 PM, Noah wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>>>> <mailto: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 <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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
--
Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at posix.co.za Tel: +27.826010496 <tel:+27826010496>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za
<https://ftth.posix.co.za>
Posix SystemsVCARD for MJ Elkins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210423/dac589dc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abessive_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6410 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210423/dac589dc/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210423/dac589dc/attachment.png>
More information about the RPD
mailing list