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
Emem William
dwizard65 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 24 09:22:05 UTC 2021
Dear Jaco,
I will advise that you and your misguided cohorts refrain from unnecessary
rantings that is capable of heating up the mailing list.
I submitted a request to the appeal committee; every rational fellow should
be able to wait patiently for the committee's decision without trying to
further complicate the issues on ground.
One important thing that I sincerely want you to know is: *I have never
made the mistake of arguing with persons for who's opinions I have no
regards.*
Have a nice weekend!
Cheers,
Emem William.
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 08:34 Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:
> Hi Emem,
>
> Please keep your derogatory for yourself. Your other email was in my
> opinion also extremely out of line.
>
> I suggest you read the code of conduct and keep to that.
>
> My father has a saying he uses frequently, "the more things change, the
> more they stay the same", combined with an Afrikaans saying (I'm sure there
> are other variants in other languages) about "met grysheid kom wysheid" or
> directly translated "with grey (hair) comes wisdom" which is to say "with
> age comes wisdom".
>
> I agree the world is modern, and we need to adapt. But trust me, I
> consider myself a young person (mid 30s), tried and tested is good. The
> saying "nuwe besems vee skoon" or "new brooms sweep clean" certainly holds
> water (value), but the broom had to be invented first. Do not forget the
> journey that was taken to get where we are. Discount that and you're
> throwing the baby (good, new) out with the bath water (dirty, no longer
> usable).
>
> Please refer to my previous email, and if you can't deduce from that why
> consensus is the technically more correct and better approach compared to
> democracy _in_our_environment_, please re-read it a few more times, then
> sleep on it. I'm not so sure democracy is the father of
> multistakeholderism as you say, but I get why you're saying it - it's what
> we're all being indoctrinated with from a young age, and up to a point
> (meaning until you really sit and think about it, hard) it makes sense. I
> don't need you to agree with me, but I would ask that you try to understand
> and show some respect to your peers that came before you. I'm also very
> new (5 years) in this community, and I can tell you this: Those that have
> come before us certainly have some large shoes and broad shoulders. Show
> them the respect they deserve, please. They've been around the block a few
> times and better than any of us understand the pitfalls, and they have the
> experience to be able to provide guidance and vision. To build. To
> strengthen. So keep to your ideals, but learn from them.
>
> Now, instead of discussing philosophical politics and differences (not to
> say it's not important to understand these), can we please get back to
> discussing policy making? We are after all supposed to be the *Policy*
> *D*evelopment *W*orking *G*roup.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Jaco
>
> On 2021/04/23 21:08, Emem William wrote:
>
> Dear Eddy,
>
> I would also like to suggest that you organise a webiner for some old
> folks on how to handle things in a multistakeholder environment. I see the
> need to enlighten them on the fact that a 'market' has many entrance. More
> importantly you need to educate them that there are new and better ways of
> doing things.
>
> They should not continue to live in thier old shadows because we are in a
> modern world where all animals are now becoming equal. They need not
> exhibit thier ignorance and think they can continue to dominate the others
> and label them 'new'.
>
> More importantly, you need to teach them that in a land where there are
> rules, the rules has to be followed; not an attempt circumvent the rules,
> by old folks to cheat the younger ones all in the name of "*being old*".
> It's not by age anymore. Probably Mark should suggest '*All animals
> are equal, Face or No face'.*
> This, I believe will restore the long lost sanity in AFRINIC.
>
> Cheers,
> Emem William
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 17:34 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> 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>
>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210424/f72db134/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list