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

[Owen DeLong]

Arnaud,

You express only one of two common law systems widely practiced around the world. In fact, you express the less prevalent of the two.

System 1: That which is not expressly forbidden is permitted.
	This system is common throughout most of Europe, the United States, Canada, and much of Asia.
	Notable locations where it is not practiced include Russia, China, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria and more.

System 2 (as you expressed): That which is not expressly permitted is forbidden.
	This system is mostly practiced in countries with relatively limited civil rights and more oppressive regimes.

I don’t have a dog in the fight whether this appeal is legitimate or not and frankly, I don’t know. I do know that I think it would be
a terrible mistake for AFRINIC to start operating on the basis of System 2 and suggest that at least until this point, it has
generally operated on System 1, as do all of the other RIRs.

Owen



> On Apr 22, 2021, at 01:29 , 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 <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 9th and April 11th.

> 

> (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 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 <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 <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 <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 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 <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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210624/1ee6140c/attachment-0001.html>