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


Sami Salih sami.salih at
Fri Apr 23 18:27:13 UTC 2021

excellent suggestion

Sami Salih
From: Mark Elkins <mje at>
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2021 7:45 PM
To: Noah <noah at>; Eddy Kayihura <eddy at>
Cc: rpd List <rpd at>

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.


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


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,

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><mailto:pascosoft at> 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<mailto:hartek66 at>> wrote:


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.



On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:30 AM Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at<mailto:amelnaud at>> 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.


Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 à 02:38, lucilla fornaro <lucillafornarosawamoto at<mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto at>> 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.


Il giorno mer 21 apr 2021 alle ore 14:18 Emem William <dwizard65 at<mailto:dwizard65 at>> 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.



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


(2) 9th April 2021, Policy Liaison Team announced consensus is achieved


(3) 11th April 2021, Board Chair declared consensus


Name and email address of complainant.

Emem William

dwizard65 at<mailto:dwizard65 at>

Names of complainants.

1. Olamide Andu (olamideandu at<mailto:olamideandu at>)

2. Yusuf Abdurahman Adebisi (adebc007 at<mailto:adebc007 at>)

3. Emem Ekpo William (dwizard65 at<mailto:dwizard65 at>)

4. Sunday Ayuba (sundayayuba8 at<mailto:sundayayuba8 at>)

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!

Emem William.
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>
RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

Kind regards,


RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>

RPD mailing list
RPD at<mailto:RPD at>


Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
mje at<mailto:mje at> Tel: +27.826010496<tel:+27826010496>
For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA:

[Posix Systems][VCARD for MJ Elkins]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: abessive_logo.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 6410 bytes
Desc: abessive_logo.jpg
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: QR-MJElkins.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2163 bytes
Desc: QR-MJElkins.png
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list