<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>