<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello Andrew</p>
<p>Just one point to highlight.<br>
The CPM text doesn't mandate that people for the Recall Committee
must be necessarily from the community. It may or may not and it
may be mix of them. As long they have proper knowledge of the case
that is a good thing.<br>
The important thing to observe is that they must be people trusted
by the Board of Directors to do the job impartially and obviously
that is not directly involved in any sides of the the dispute.</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/11/2020 09:52, Andrew Alston
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:VI1PR03MB50564F90D080B03A1B076892EEE00@VI1PR03MB5056.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.p1, li.p1, div.p1
{mso-style-name:p1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.s1
{mso-style-name:s1;}
p.p2, li.p2, div.p2
{mso-style-name:p2;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
p.li1, li.li1, div.li1
{mso-style-name:li1;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle25
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:324.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0cm;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0cm;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Up until now, I’ve stayed pretty silent on
this, because quite frankly – I have no issues with the
chairs and if they stay or go makes very little difference
in my life.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">That being said – the one thing I do care about
is the process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">So – let’s look at that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US">Section 3.5 of the consolidated policy manual
states:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family:Symbol">·</span>
Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any
time, upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC
Board of Directors. The request must be supported by at least
five (5) other persons from the Working Group. The AFRINIC
Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee, excluding
the persons requesting the recall and the Working Group
Chairs. The recall committee shall investigate the
circumstances of the justification for the recall and
determine the outcome.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So – it is at the
discretion of those who requested the recall to do so – that
much is clear – if we don’t like that – change the PDP. The
board however, is now obligated under the PDP to appoint a
recall committee, as per the above point, that includes the
working group chairs and the complainants, and that
committee then reviews, deliberates and delivers a verdict.
My reading of that is that the committee appointed shall be
appointed from the community – though that may well be a
subjective reading of the text. I would hope that the board
would endeavor to appoint individuals entirely divorced from
this mess on the list who can be objective and impartial in
their review of the available evidence and then render a
verdict based on hard fact and evidence. But whichever way
this happens – we have a policy process – and while we may
or may not like the outcomes of the policy process – the
process is sacrosanct and must be observed and followed, and
if we don’t like what the process says – the PDP process
allows for us, as members of the PDP, to change that
process through the rough consensus process.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Andrew<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"
lang="en-KE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><span
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US">
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com">dc@darwincosta.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com"><dc@darwincosta.com></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 19 November 2020 11:04<br>
<b>To:</b> Gaby Giner
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com"><gabyginernetwork@gmail.com></a>; rpd >> AfriNIC
Resource Policy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"><rpd@afrinic.net></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC
PDWG CO-CHAIRS<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt">On
19 Nov 2020, at 07:23, Gaby Giner <<a
href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
lang="FR">Everyone,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><b><span
lang="FR"> </span></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">Most
of the arguments advanced are irrelevant and
completely out of the context of the nature of the
demand to recall the co-chairs. Therefore, it would
make the whole request null and invalid.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><b>Part
A:</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">This
part does not have any violations or dishonest acts
done by any of the co-chairs. They have had no
influence whatsoever on neither the meeting
participants nor their reaction (which I don't see
the relevance here anyway). This looks like a normal
election process to me, not only in this particular
field but for everything and everywhere else in the
world. Stating otherwise is either naïve or just
clueless. Also, protests from a losing party look
like a normal reaction to me in an election, some
more sore than others as evidenced by recent
presidential elections in the US, but I digress. All
of the points made in this part are wholly
immaterial and should be dismissed.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><b>Part
B :</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">1.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">I
noticed you keep basing your arguments on "it was
observed", "Observed by a participant" and
"Following the suspicions". Serious accusations
should be based on actual proof and precise
arguments: not guesses, suspicions, and some
anonymous witnesses and vague insinuations. Anyone
can come up with scenarios if they are unfounded and
unproven, especially if they are about events that
have occurred a very long time ago but were not
reported at the exact time. What makes it the best
moment now? And why didn't you ask to recall the
co-chairs back then if you had all the necessary
proof? This makes absolutely no sense because if
your intentions are as honest as you claim they are,
this should have been handled a while ago and not
right after the same community reelected one of the
same co-chairs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">Nevertheless,
this is a blatant interference in two people's
personal life. I hope this behavior won't start
encouraging individuals to begin following co-chairs
to hotels and anywhere else outside the PPM
conference room. We are talking about two people who
were brave enough to volunteer to do a job that
starts and ends inside the PPM room and in the
mailing list. Whatever else they do in their private
time shouldn't be of anyone's concern and has
nothing to do with their work integrity.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">2.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">There
isn't anything wrong with the video, and nothing you
have stated appears to exist. I think you are the
one that interpreted the meeting in a biased way.
The co-chairs simply gave recommendations that they
think favor the community and are related to
managing the PDP, which is totally in their scope.
As long as it's not enforced, then no harm is
intended nor done.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">3.)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">The
rpd list in an open space where individuals are free
to respond, converse, and argue. As long as no
offense or attacks are intended, the freedom to
defend oneself should not be censored just because
"seniors" as you call it, are involved. Particularly
when we all know that there has been a serious
history of bullying and unfounded accusations on the
list. I'm starting to feel weary of this
back-and-forth on this matter, but nevertheless it
is still worth reiterating—the RPD list is a fair
space where all individuals are equal, and
everyone's input is welcome. So your personal
feelings should not interfere in your judgment on
the work and integrity of the co-chairs, nor in your
request to recall them.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><b>Part
C :</b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">As
far as I know, the community handled both the online
meeting and election process matters. It is not the
co-chair's duty to handle this sort of thing but
rather the community members by vote. They only had
to manage the discussions and take into
consideration the opinions, which they correctly
did. Therefore, section (1) is utterly wrong.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">For
the rest, let me summarize it like this :<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">All
of this seems very suspicious and makes me think
that there is some personal motive or agenda behind
this request. If the community was discontented with
the current co-chairs, it could have easily
prevented Abdul Kareem to be reelected again, which
was not the case. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i>"The
co-chairs continue to ignore the numerous calls
to them to take the proposal back for further
discussions."</i></b> This is absolutely not
true, and it can easily be proven if you just take
the time to go back to the previous thread about the
policy, extending its last call, and calling for
additional comments. The co-chairs have gone back
and forth to satisfy the community's concerns and
have extended the policy's discussion time. So did
the authors who have managed to resolve every issue
and improve the policy, but lately no one seemed to
have any new or further objections. Logically this
would convince the co-chairs to finally give the go
signal for the proposal because it can't be stuck
forever with the same people who were raising
concerns being suddenly quiet. There is no logic at
all, and the procedure was followed according to
protocol. Therefore, the argument is not valid.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">Saying
that the co-chairs violated the PDP by suggesting
amendments to proposals is no violation in itself
because the CPM never mentioned explicitly that they
are not allowed to do so. The co-chairs again are
within their scope.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">The
WG is managed by the CPM, which is very clear about
the PDP. You have mentioned several times arguments
about violations of the PDP etcetera without stating
what and where it contradicts what the CPM says.
Unless you do that, I don't see the validity of all
the related arguments. You can't judge what a
violation is based on whether it aligns with your
personal agenda or not. There are rules and
instructions that have been created to be followed
and not subjectively interpreted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:36.0pt">Finally,
I totally understand your discontentment with the
whole situation since the transfer policies were in
a tough competition and since you are the authors of
the other proposal. You can be unsatisfied for as
long as you can, but let me say that it is no valid
excuse or justification to make an unfounded request
to recall the co-chairs whose sole job is to manage
the PDP. Not only the arguments are invalid and
biased, but there is no actual proof to support the
claims and accusations, so I urge the board to look
into this urgently and dismiss it. Otherwise, the
PDP and the AFRINIC community will no longer be the
same, which will be a shame.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<span class="s1">Just to comment here in between. I don’t
think the main cause here is “discontentment” but rather how
this proposal was conducted including last minute changes.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p2"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;min-height: 20.3px;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="p1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<span class="s1">IMHO and someone has mentioned here on this
tread “collaborative work between all the authors” - well I
would definitely agree that this is something that makes a
community a better place. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p2"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;min-height: 20.3px;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="p1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<span class="s1">My only concern with this proposal and all
the changes made it on the last call is that the changes
were made at wrong stage of the process. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p2"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;min-height: 20.3px;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="p1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<span class="s1">Last but not least, remember the discussion
between Cohen and Ronald here couple of weeks ago? Well same
discussion is running again on the NANOG mailinglist. And
the main concern here is: </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p2"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;min-height: 20.3px;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="li1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span class="s1">Where
we conservative enough when all those resources were sold? </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="li1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span class="s1">Are we
even seeing this resources back anytime soon? Maybe not....
maybe never...</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="li1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span class="s1">Not to
mention how many African startups or unborn ISP(s) will have
to fight for v4 addresses when those are not anymore
available at Afrinic... We all know where they will have to
go to......</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<span class="s1">I could go even further but I will stop here
by saying - What happened in the past can happen again and
only time will tell how good or bad this proposal is FOR
US. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p2"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;min-height: 20.3px;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="p1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<span class="s1">As community we need to protect AFRINIC
interests instead of individuals benefits.... </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p2"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;min-height: 20.3px;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="p1"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<span class="s1">My 2cts.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="p2"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;font-stretch:
normal;min-height: 20.3px;-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Thanks,
Gaby<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Darwin-.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On
Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:51 AM lucilla fornaro
<<a
href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">Dear Community,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">I believe that
the multiple accusations towards
Co-Chairs, and of course, the current
request to recall is suspicious, unfair,
and in bad faith. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">The recall
seems to be a sort of intimidatory attempt
of revenge for the mere fact that their
proposals did not reach consensus.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">I was not a
member of Afrinic when Co-chairs were
elected, but based on what is written on
the recall, I cannot understand how
Co-chairs are to be considered responsible
for previous Co-chairs' resignation. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">According to
paragraph 1, I understand authors’ are
suggesting an ex-parte communication, once
again without documentation. The point is,
every single human behavior might be
misunderstood, that is why without shreds
of evidence, these kinds of accusations
should not even be mentioned. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">I feel the
recall is more personal than based on
facts. The recall's main supporters are
those authors that have seen their
proposals rejected, as well as someone who
has lost elections to the current
Co-chairs. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">The recall is a
mere list of accusations of presumable and
never confirmed violations perpetrated by
Co-chairs since the beginning of their
office. Without evidence or a clear and
specific reference to the CPM, indictments
are inappropriate and meaningless. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">Another sign of
the resentment and hostility comes not
only from the recall but also from the
previous discussions where it was clear
that the main goal was to silence some
other members of the community to make
sure their proposals had no objections.
The anger is clear from the way the recall
is written and the manipulative language
used. Again, the unfounded accusations of
usurpation and corruption are
unacceptable. Authors accused co-chairs
when, in reality, and according to their
admission, they failed to file a properly
formed appeal. This is a very
controversial behavior that nothing has to
do with Afrinic and its development. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">To me, these
are all relevant elements the Board needs
to consider.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">Lucilla<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">Il giorno mer 18
nov 2020 alle ore 23:03 Ibeanusi Elvis <<a
href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a>>
ha scritto:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">Dear Community;
Dear All, <br>
<br>
After an in-depth review of this current
request to recall the Afrinic PDWG
co-chairs, I have come to the conclusion
that this request is not only biased, it
is filled with accusations, personal
reasons especially with regards to the
event of things of the past month during
the last call, attaining consensus and the
difficulty in the ratification and
implementation of the specific policies
due to its conflict with other policies of
similar nature. Additionally, this request
has no significant proof as well as
justification. <br>
<br>
Initially, during the policy decision
process and the last call period, the
co-chairs performed their duties as the
representatives of the PDWG, gave every
member of the working groups to make their
inputs and express their opinions whether
in support or against the policy in
discussion at the time. Likewise, these
opinions, inputs and concerns expressed by
the WG were been put into consideration to
make the best decision that works best for
the AFRINIC RIR and focus on the
development and evolution of the internet
in the African region. <br>
<br>
Additionally, during the AFRINIC Virtual
PPM, the idea that the co-chairs made no
effort to make sure that the WG understood
the Pros and Cons of the policy is
outrightly accusation with no profound
justification or proof. As I can recall,
during the commencement of the AFRINIC
Virtual PPM, the co-chairs not only
described the each policy up for the
discussion but they also pointed out the
pros and cons of each policy and as well,
gave the authors of the policies the
opportunity to elaborately speak on the
significance, importance and value of
their policies, and how it fits with the
grand goal of the RIR which is the
development of the internet in the region,
which the participants/WG whom
participated in the virtual PPM expressed
their concerns, opinions and objections.<br>
<br>
Finally, in addition to the fact that this
request is compounded with emotional
statements, lack of concrete evidence and
biases; with the person behind this
request as well as the listed signatories
of this request, i can firmly adhere to
the ideology that this request was
specifically made out of emotional
sentiments and self-indulgent feeling of
sadness due to the result/outcome and the
rightful procedures taken of the
well-debated ‘Inter-RIR Policy Proposal’
which had three conflicting proposals. <br>
<br>
Best regards, <br>
Elvis<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Nov
18, 2020, at 21:04, Wijdane Goubi
<<a
href="mailto:goubi.wijdane@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">Dear community,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif;color:#888888"
lang="EN-US"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">I have read the
recall document and have found
it based on very subjective
and personal reasons, which
makes sense in a way because
of how the last policy that
has reached consensus, was in
a constant competition with
other related proposals.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">First of all, as
far as I can remember, the
co-chairs have always asked
the community to give decent
explanations of what raises
their concerns, but instead,
there were constant personal
attacks, unrelated subjects
and arguments and no more
unaddressed concerns.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">Dragging the
co-chairs and accusing them of
some serious accusations just
because one proposal reached
consensus and others did not,
proves again that this recall
is based on personal guesses
and speculations with no <span
style="color:#2C2D30">discrete</span>,
distinguished and notable
reasons.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">Our community
seems not to be, sadly enough,
a stress-free working
environment. The co-chairs
always have to deal with
targets set by the community,
and <strong><span
style="border:none
windowtext
1.0pt;padding:0cm">these
targets are often hard to
achieve,</span></strong> which
creates a lot of pressure on
them.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">I substantially
believe that the co-chairs are
not taking a side and are
perfectly respecting one of
the most important values in
the CPM which is fairness.
They care enough to assess
their performance by
respecting the CPM, Not taking
sides but actually discussing
each policy on its own and
most importantly giving enough
time to solve the community’s
concerns.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">I strongly
believe that what we do need
more is to be objective in the
way we judge things, and
actually stop having unfair
opinions in order to have more
clarity, lack of bias, and
often transparent obviousness
of the truth.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span
style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New
Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">Cheers,</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">Le mer.
18 nov. 2020 à 10:03, Taiwo
Oyewande <<a
href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a>>
a écrit :<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm
0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><br>
I will like to believe that
the recall request sent to the
board is to permit a form of
election for the community to
either vote to remove or
retain the serving co chairs.
As the board didn’t vote/
appoint the cochairs
therefore, they have no powers
to remove them. <br>
<br>
This recall seems like an
attempt to hijack the
community through the back
door. I can see that the
petition was signed by
<br>
1. one person who lost
elections in Kampala to the
current Co-chairs, <br>
2. authors of competing
proposal with our Inter RIR
policy,<br>
3. a member whose right was
suspended after he violated
the CoC. <br>
4. A member who shamefully
made frivolous allegation in
Uganda using a fake profile
among others.
<br>
This list of petitioners makes
me wonder if this is a
personal vendetta. <br>
<br>
The petition to me borders
around the co chairs using
initiative to take decisions.
It seems that some party “the
power brokers” are aggrieved
that they are not been
consulted before the co chairs
make decisions
<br>
<br>
Another funny allegation is
that the co chairs wasted the
time of the community by not
passing policies in Angola -
this is a misleading argument
as discussing policies to
improve them is never a waste
of time. Unfortunately when
they decided to make sure that
polices are resolved during
the last PPM. The exact same
people complained. <br>
I guess the co-chairs can
never do right in their sight.
<br>
<br>
Finally, as one of the authors
of the competing proposals in
Angola. I will like to clearly
state that the co-chairs sent
all authors of competing
policy proposals to try and
consolidate the policies. My
co-author and i had several
meeting with Jordi but the
authors of the third proposal
totally refused the offer to
join heads to produce one
proposal. This now makes me
wonder how they derived the
claim that the co-chairs tried
to force the consolidation
when they where not even
present.
<br>
I will like to clearly state
that the co-chairs did not
interfere in our meetings.
Hence the call on stage in
Angola to find out our resolve
from the said meeting.<br>
<br>
My input.<br>
<br>
Kind regards. <br>
Taiwo<br>
<br>
> On 18 Nov 2020, at 07:31,
Owen DeLong <<a
href="mailto:owen@delong.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">owen@delong.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Speaking strictly as
myself, not representing any
organization or company:<br>
> <br>
> I couldn’t agree more.
This recall petition is
entirely specious and without
merit.<br>
> <br>
> As to the supposed
reasons and evidence
supporting the removal of the
co-chairs, the following
problems exist with the PDF
provided to the community
(this may not be a
comprehensive list, but it
certainly covers enough to
indicate that the PDF is not a
basis for removal of the
co-chairs):<br>
> <br>
> A: There is nothing
prohibiting the recruitment of
people to participate in
AfriNIC, in fact<br>
> it is encouraged.<br>
> <br>
> I fail to understand
what bearing the resignation
of the co-chair and failure to
elect a<br>
> co-chair in Dakar has
on the legitimacy of the
current chairs. Indeed, the
supposed<br>
> controversial election
refers to Kampala which really
only applies to one of the two<br>
> current serving
co-chairs as the other was
recently re-elected in the
AfriNIC virtual<br>
> meeting.<br>
> <br>
> While I agree that
singing a national anthem of
one of the co-chairs in
celebration of<br>
> the election result is
a bit uncouth, I see no
relevance here. It occurred
after the<br>
> election was over and
therefore could not have
altered the outcome of the
election.<br>
> <br>
> The “protests” were
the sour grapes of a small
(but vocal) minority of the
community.<br>
> <br>
> As to “Finding 1”,
this is outside of the control
of the co-chairs that were
elected<br>
> in Kampala and thus
has no bearing on the
discussion here.<br>
> <br>
> As such, I submit that
section A is wholly without
merit and is a blatant attempt
to<br>
> malign the current
co-chairs without substance.<br>
> <br>
> B: Paragraph 1 is
nearly impossible to parse,
but if I understand the
authors’ intended<br>
> meaning, they are
claiming that the co-chairs
were somehow taken to a hotel
for<br>
> some form of improper
ex-parte communication.
Further, they appear to be
claiming that<br>
> they asked the board
to investigate this
allegation, but the board
didn’t do so and<br>
> they therefor have no
evidence to support this
claim.<br>
> <br>
> There is so much wrong
with this that it is difficult
to dignify it with a response,<br>
> nonetheless, I will do
so here. First, merely taking
the co-chairs to a hotel
hardly<br>
> seems like a nefarious
act. I, myself have been known
to enjoy a meal or a drink or
two<br>
> with co-chairs of
various RIRs. Surely the
co-chairs are not denied a
social life merely<br>
> because of their
position.<br>
> <br>
> There is no evidence
that any sort of undue
influence was exerted through
any ex-parte<br>
> communication that may
have occurred during this
alleged outing as indicated by
the<br>
> authors’ own words
“The board did not act as
nothing was reported back.”<br>
> <br>
> Paragraph 2 I reviewed
the video referenced.<br>
> <br>
> I did not see evidence
of bias. I did not see
evidence of incapability or
incompetence.<br>
> <br>
> I saw a good faith
effort to be courteous and
collegial with the authors of
two competing<br>
> policies and an effort
to see if the authors were
willing to work together to
consolidate<br>
> their policies. I saw
a lack of cooperation by the
both policy authors which the
chairs<br>
> attempted to navigate.<br>
> <br>
> I will admit that the
chairs may have pushed a
little harder than I think was
appropriate<br>
> towards encouraging
the authors to work together,
but that’s a difficult
judgment call<br>
> in the circumstance
and it’s quite clear that the
chairs stopped well short of
the point<br>
> of overcoming any
intransigence by the authors.
As such, I see no harm to the
PDP in their<br>
> conduct.<br>
> <br>
> While I don’t agree
with all of the decisions made
by the co-chairs, especially
the AS0<br>
> ROA proposal, as I
stated on the list at the
time, I recognize the
legitimacy of their<br>
> decision and the fact
that people of good conscience
can view the same set of facts
and/or<br>
> the same issues
differently. The default
position should be no
consensus. A co-chair that<br>
> is not confident that
there is strong community
consensus for a proposal
should absolutely<br>
> declare no-consensus
and that is exactly what
happened here. No consensus is
not fatal or<br>
> even really harmful to
a proposal. It just means that
the authors need to continue
their<br>
> efforts to build
consensus among the community
either through further
discussion on the<br>
> mailing list or by
modifying the proposal to
address the objections. In
some cases, it may<br>
> be that a proposal
simply isn’t something the
community wants. I don’t think
that applies<br>
> to AS0 ROAs, but in
such a case, the rejection of
the proposal is a perfectly
valid outcome.<br>
> <br>
> I believe the failure
of the AfriNIC community to
include a mechanism for the
community to<br>
> express that a
proposal should not be
recycled or further discussed
because it is simply<br>
> not wanted by the
community is one of the
biggest problems in the
AfriNIC PDP. That failure<br>
> is the main reason
that proposals like Resource
Review plagued the community
for so long.<br>
> <br>
> The authors of this
so-called recall petition
admit that their appeal of the
co-chairs<br>
> decision was
unsuccessful because they
failed to file a properly
formed appeal, yet they<br>
> mention this as if it
is somehow an indictment of
the co-chairs.<br>
> <br>
> Time spent discussing
proposals is not wasted, even
if the proposals aren’t
advanced.<br>
> Such a claim is
contrary to the spirit and
intent of the PDP and the
values of the RIR<br>
> system. From what I
saw, the major obstacle to the
resolution of objections was
more about<br>
> the intransigence of
the authors than anything
under the control of the
co-chairs.<br>
> Notably, the group
filing this petition contains
many of the most intransigent
proposal<br>
> authors in the region.<br>
> <br>
> While I do not believe
it appropriate for co-chairs
to tell someone to “retire” or
“go away”,<br>
> and as such won’t
defend the general tone of
either of the messages
referenced, I think they<br>
> stopped short of such
an outright suggestion as the
text in the PDF would
indicate. I also<br>
> think that the
repeated attacks on the
co-chairs by a vocal minority
including (perhaps even<br>
> led by) the so-called
“senior members of the
community” in question leading
up to it makes the<br>
> somewhat visceral
response understandable,
though still not ideal. Taking
the messages out of<br>
> context is
disingenuous at best.<br>
> <br>
> Finding 2 is utterly
specious. The co-chairs are
gaining experience with the
PDP and WG<br>
> procedures and I see
no evidence that they’ve done
any worse running the WG than
many of<br>
> their far less
controversial predecessors. If
their supposed “lack of
neutrality” rises<br>
> only to the level of
“suspicion” and you cannot
present actual evidence or
even a solid<br>
> claim that it exists
in fact, then that is hardly a
basis for removal. You’ve
shown<br>
> no evidence that bias
exists and therefor no basis
for your claim that said bias
impacted<br>
> the meeting. I fail to
see how the concerns of some
or the fears of others are
relevant<br>
> here. We should be
seeking facts and evidence
regarding any suspected
wrongdoing, not<br>
> concerns and fears.<br>
> <br>
> C: Was there more that
the co-chairs could have done
in the time before AfriNIC-32?
Almost<br>
> certainly yes. OTOH,
nearly everyone has dropped
some balls in one way or
another during<br>
> that time. The world
was on tilt most of that time
period as a result of a virus
which<br>
> is still running
rampant in many parts of the
world. Many of us have lost
friends and/or<br>
> loved ones and almost
all of us at least know
someone who has lost a friend
or a loved one.<br>
> There is nobody who
can say they remain untouched
by this current circumstance
and to<br>
> expect perfect
execution of even the most
experienced and capable of
co-chairs would be<br>
> an unreasonable
request under the
circumstances.<br>
> <br>
> The PDF authors
present no evidence to support
their claim that the co-chairs
had selected<br>
> a particular proposal
to push forward and their
supposed reference to some
form of demonstration<br>
> at AfriNIC-31 is
without foundation or
evidence.<br>
> <br>
> Their further claim
(1) that the co-chairs did
nothing is also presented
without evidence.<br>
> The email cited is a
message from Eddy describing
the plan of record. It
provides no information<br>
> about any action or
inaction in the preceding
process by the co-chairs.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (2) that staff
took the lead ignores any
interactions which may have
occurred<br>
> off list between the
co-chairs, staff, and/or the
board regarding coordination
and<br>
> planning for the
possibility of a virtual
AfriNIC meeting possibly
including a PDWG<br>
> meeting. The larger
questions of the AfriNIC
meeting were out of scope for
the co-chairs<br>
> and expecting them to
solve the PDWG meeting
questions prior to obtaining
answers from<br>
> staff regarding the
questions around the larger
meeting (which are the
questions authors<br>
> refer to when claiming
staff took the lead) is
absurd.<br>
> <br>
> Regarding claim (3),
the incumbent co-chair is not
responsible for the behavior
of other<br>
> candidates and any
such expectation that the
co-chair would perform his/her
duties in a<br>
> manner more to the
liking of the authors or
candidates in question would
be inappropriate<br>
> in the extreme. So
far, I have seen little
evidence of poor or improper
performance of<br>
> their duties by the
co-chairs in question.
Certainly nothing that rises
to the level of<br>
> any legitimacy for an
attempt to remove them from
office. Neither of the emails
cited<br>
> indicates any sort of
expected change in behavior by
the co-chairs.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (4) that the
decisions made by the
co-chairs at AfriNIC-32 were
“all rejected and<br>
> appealed” is
interesting to note that all
of those appeals were
submitted by a single<br>
> proposal author.
Further, since the Appeals
committee has given themselves
until<br>
> February 18, 2021 to
conclude and publish the last
appeal result and has not
provided<br>
> any conclusions as yet
(In fact, one of the dates
suggested for publication was<br>
> December 22, 2021, but
I suspect that’s a typo for
December 22, 2020), it’s
really<br>
> hard to know whether
these appeals are simply a
concerted effort by a vocal
minority<br>
> to discredit the
co-chairs or whether they have
actual merit. As such, using
this fact<br>
> as a basis for removal
of the co-chairs is premature
at best and potentially
manipulative<br>
> and dishonest at
worst.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (5) is not
supported by the email
referenced (or authors need to
be more specific<br>
> about where in the
email they see evidence
supporting their claim as I do
not see it<br>
> in reviewing that
email). The video shows a
co-chair struggling a bit with
language, but<br>
> overall delivering a
concise and well reasoned
description of the situation
with each<br>
> policy and reasonable
determinations of consensus or
not based on the record
available.<br>
> Disagreeing with the
co-chairs judgment of
consensus alone is not
justification for a<br>
> recall. Each issue
that I heard the co-chair
mentioned was an issue that
had been brought<br>
> up in the discussion
either in person or on the
mailing list. Poor memory on
the part of<br>
> the PDF authors should
not be grounds for removal of
a co-chair.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (6) mostly
reiterates claim (4) and
offers nothing novel or useful
to the record.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (7) does not
provide sufficient information
and should be clarified by the
PDF authors<br>
> prior to being
evaluated for merit (or lack
there of).<br>
> <br>
> Claim (8) is not
accurate. The amendments
proposed by the co-chairs had
been previously<br>
> requested by multiple
members of the community and
directly addressed objections
raised<br>
> by the community. The
co-chairs asked the proposal
authors if they were amenable
to the<br>
> amendments requested
in order to achieve consensus
and authors agreed. There is
little<br>
> actual and no
effective difference between
this and the co-chairs
determining<br>
> non-consensus based on
the objections rectified by
the amendments followed by
authors<br>
> making the amendments
in question, followed by a
determination of consensus
(which is<br>
> entirely within the
PDP). It is interesting that
the authors of this accusatory
PDF<br>
> argue on one hand that
co-chairs wasted time by not
moving things forward and then
here<br>
> complain that authors
made efficient use of time by
getting author consent for
amendments<br>
> requested by the
community and declaring
consensus on the proposal with
those amendments.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (9) This appears
to be a generally factual
claim, but I’m not sure how it
is relevant<br>
> as a claim of
malfeasance or incompetence on
the part of the co-chairs.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (10) lacks
foundation or evidence. I’m
not sure how "objections
forcing the authors<br>
> to make a lot of
substantial changes” is in
violation of the PDP… It’s my
belief that the<br>
> PDP is intended to
allow the community to insist
upon needed changes in a
proposal throughout<br>
> the process.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (11) also lacks
foundation or evidence. If
there is a basis to a claim
that the<br>
> so-called editorial
changes were not, in fact,
editorial in nature, then that
basis<br>
> should be explained in
the document and supporting
evidence should be provided.
The<br>
> mere filing of an
appeal (or even two appeals)
is proof of nothing other than
the<br>
> fact that someone
didn’t like the outcome.<br>
> <br>
> Claim (12) It’s
unclear what “submission” to
whom is expected in Claim
(12), nor do I see<br>
> anything in the PDP
that requires the co-chairs to
await the decision of the
appeal<br>
> committee prior to
defending their decisions to
the community. One one hand,
PDF authors<br>
> are claiming that the
co-chairs ignore community
input and on the other they
are now<br>
> complaining that the
co-chairs decided to solicit
additional community feedback
given<br>
> the apparent
controversy over their
decision. It’s unclear to me
which provisions of<br>
> the PDP this is
alleged to violate and authors
make no citations of the
relevant PDP<br>
> sections to which they
vaguely refer in the phrase
“more violations of the PDP”.<br>
> Further, co-chairs are
elected to implement and
manage the PDP. They are not
responsible<br>
> for defending the PDP
(nor do I believe that the PDP
is under attack except
possibly by<br>
> the proposal to modify
it which did not achieve
consensus). In fact, defending
the<br>
> PDP against that
proposal would be a violation
of the PDP in my opinion, so
once again,<br>
> authors of the PDF
have erred.<br>
> <br>
> Because virtually the
entire basis for Finding 3 is
refuted above, it is also my
considered<br>
> opinion that Finding 3
is entirely specious and
without merit. There is no
evidence presented<br>
> that the co-chairs
violated the PDP, nor is there
any indication that they made
“unilateral”<br>
> decisions inconsistent
with the record of community
input. They have not
demonstrated a lack<br>
> of fairness. The
question of neutrality is
subjective at best and there’s
no clear evidence<br>
> of bias presented. The
policy preferences expressed
by the co-chairs are
consistent with the<br>
> community feedback
received in the record overall
and do not provide any clear
indication<br>
> of bias. Yes, they are
contrary to the opinions of
the PDF authors, but so is
much of the<br>
> feedback received from
the community on a variety of
issues.<br>
> <br>
> Conclusion:<br>
> <br>
> The vast majority of
the claims made in this
document are entirely specious
and without<br>
> merit. I hope that the
board will dismiss this action
as the frivolous and baseless<br>
> attack on the PDP that
it represents and I hope that
we can all move forward on a
more<br>
> collegial basis. I
hope that the PDF authors will
stop using Donald Trump as a
role model<br>
> and recognize that
bullying is ultimately a
losing strategy.<br>
> <br>
> Owen<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>> On Nov 17, 2020, at
1:54 PM, Ekaterina Kalugina
<<a
href="mailto:kay.k.prof@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">kay.k.prof@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> <br>
>> Dear community,<br>
>> <br>
>> It is my firm belief
that the current request to
recall the co-chairs is not
only incredibly unfounded,
biased and generally done in
bad faith but is, in fact, in
violation of some of the basic
values AFRINIC stands for.<br>
> <br>
> [snip]<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>