<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I am glad to see the same and very repeating only argument
against this Recall Request is that some (not all) of the authors
are also authors of 'competing proposals' (as if the PDWG was a
battle of proposals) and trying to make up as if this was
something forbidden.<br>
</p>
<p>Everything that was done in both the Appeal and the Recall
Request is done strictly in the line with what the CPM allows so
there is nothing else others that are moaning about can do other
than wait for the output.<br>
</p>
<p>Please leave with the Board to do its job. It's entirely up to
them to consider if the justifications given make sense or not.<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 20/11/2020 10:58, Ekaterina Kalugina
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHS7WUDcjUoAWKZ04_L77or4Sxe6qg4eSjm3ShEg0ps72kqXJg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">Dear community,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">As Andrew pointed out: "Anyone may request the
recall of a Working Group Chair at any time, upon written
request with justification to the AFRINIC Board of
Directors." </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The problem here is that there are no valid
justifications to support the present recall request. As many
of the members including myself already pointed out, this
recall request is unjustified as it is not based on objective
facts. Rather, this request is largely unfounded and supported
by biased arguments and bitter emotional accusations. No
tangible evidence has been presented to support the case.
There is also a serious conflict of interest as some of the
signatories happen to be authors of a competing transfer
proposal, while others were denied the position of a chair in
the previous elections. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This request is also generally done in bad
faith. It's text refers to a number of appeals to justify its
legitimacy. Yet, these appeals were all launched by the very
same people who signed this recall request. In my view, this
is an unfair move that seeks to bend the PDP to the agendas of
a few. Such behavior undermines the legitimacy of the whole
process and should not be tolerated. Thus, I contend that this
recall request lacks enough justifications to be considered
legitimate.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Best,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Ekaterina </div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, 11:23
lucilla fornaro <<a
href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Dear Community,</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Many pointed out the Board
now needs to appoint an impartial recall committee, and
that’s what I hope.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">From my perspective, the
recall lacks objective, accurate, and impartial
evidence, and it seems to be the consequence of
resentment and disappointment.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">"Conclusions" reports a
clear example of what I am talking about:</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">“The co-chairs continue to
ignore the numerous calls to them to take the proposal
back for further discussions." </div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">This is exactly the opposite
of what happened! Co-chairs after a member’s request
extended the last call to allow further discussions.
This is a fact, and I cannot understand how it is
possible to misrepresent it. To me, this is bad faith,
and I see no reason for this recall to exist. It is just
the last of several attempts to intimidate the community
and co-chairs.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Regards,</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">Lucilla </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno gio 19 nov 2020
alle ore 22:48 Timothy Ola Akinfenwa <<a
href="mailto:akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng</a>>
ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:"trebuchet
ms",sans-serif;font-size:small">At least this is
an objective way forward for me, and yes of course <i><font
color="#0b5394">with the exclusion of the
co-chairs and complainants</font></i> as earlier
clarified. The main hassle now is getting neutral
parties that will serve in the Recall Committee devoid
of any bias and intimidation to finally bring this
issue to a close.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:"trebuchet
ms",sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:"trebuchet
ms",sans-serif;font-size:small">🕊✌<br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<hr
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-family:"Times
New
Roman";font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;word-spacing:0px;white-space:normal"
width="70%"
size="1"
color="#247b05">
<table
style="text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-family:Montserrat,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;word-spacing:0px"
width="579"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0"
border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="border-right-color:rgb(36,123,5);border-right-width:5px;border-right-style:solid"
width="140"><img
style="width:100px;height:102px"
src="http://uniosun.edu.ng/images/logo.png"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="214" height="223"></td>
<td
width="439">
<table
style="margin-left:22px"
cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td
style="color:rgb(36,123,5);line-height:25px;font-size:14px"
width="430"><font
face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif">Engr. Timothy Ola AKINFENWA <span
style="color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:12px">Senior
System Programmer</span></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="line-height:18px"><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"
color="#444444">Information Management & Technology Centre, <br>
Osun State
University,
P.M.B. 4494,
Osogbo, Osun
State,
Nigeria.</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td
style="line-height:20px"
valign="bottom">
<table
style="line-height:20px;padding-top:5px"
width="100%"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="5%"><br>
</td>
<td
width="34%"><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"
color="#444444">+234 (0) 80 320 70 442; </font></td>
<td width="5%"><br>
</td>
<td
width="56%"><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"
color="#444444">+234 (0) 80 988 97 799</font></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table
style="line-height:20px;padding-top:0px"
width="100%"
cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="5%"><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"
color="#444444"><strong>Email: </strong></font></td>
<td
colspan="3"><font
color="#444444"><a href="mailto:akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><font size="2" face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng</font></a><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">;
</font><a
href="mailto:lordaikins@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><font size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">lordaikins@gmail.com</font></a><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">;
</font><a
href="mailto:lordaikins@yahoo.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><font size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif">lordaikins@yahoo.com</font></a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><span
style="line-height:18px"><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"
color="#444444"><strong>Website:</strong></font></span></td>
<td
width="48%"><font
size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"> </font><a
style="color:rgb(153,153,153);text-decoration:none"
href="http://uniosun.edu.ng/"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><font size="2"
face="trebuchet
ms,sans-serif"
color="#444444">www.uniosun.edu.ng</font></a></td>
<td width="4%"> </td>
<td
style="padding-top:5px"
width="43%"
valign="bottom"><a
href="http://www.facebook.com/lordaikins" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/facebook.png"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><span> </span><a
href="http://www.twitter.com/lordaikins"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/twitter.png"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><span> </span><a
href="http://www.instagram.com/lordaikins"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/flickr.png"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a><span> </span><a
href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TimothyOlaAkinfenwa"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true"><img
src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/google+.png"
moz-do-not-send="true"></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font face="comic
sans ms,sans-serif">"Be
happy with what you
have and are, be
generous with both,
and you won't have to
hunt for happiness."</font>
~ William E. Gladstone</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Nov 19, 2020
at 2:00 PM Andrew Alston <<a
href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="en-KE">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span 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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">That being
said – the one thing I do care about is the
process.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So – let’s
look at that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Section
3.5 of the consolidated policy manual states:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Andrew</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="en-KE"> </span></p>
<div>
<div style="border-style:solid none
none;border-top-width:1pt;border-top-color:rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt
0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><b><span
lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> <a
href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">dc@darwincosta.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">dc@darwincosta.com</a>>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, 19 November 2020
11:04<br>
<b>To:</b> Gaby Giner <<a
href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>;
rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO
RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">
On 19 Nov 2020, at 07:23, Gaby Giner <<a
href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
<span lang="FR">Everyone,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
<b><span lang="FR"> </span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
<b>Part A:</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
<b>Part B :</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
1.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
2.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
3.)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
<b>Part C :</b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
For the rest, let me summarize it like
this :</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
<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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">
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.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>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></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> </p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>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></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> </p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>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></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> </p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>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></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> </p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72pt">
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times
New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Where we
conservative enough when all those resources
were sold? </span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72pt">
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times
New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>Are we even
seeing this resources back anytime soon? Maybe
not.... maybe never...</span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:72pt">
<span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span
style="font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times
New Roman"">
</span></span></span><span>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></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>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></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> </p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>As
community we need to protect AFRINIC interests
instead of individuals benefits.... </span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> </p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>My
2cts.</span></p>
<p
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> </p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">Thanks,
Gaby</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Regards,</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Darwin-.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><br>
<br>
</p>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">On Thu,
Nov 19, 2020 at 11:51 AM lucilla
fornaro <<a
href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-style:none
none none
solid;border-left-width:1pt;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm
0cm 0cm
6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">Dear
Community,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">I
believe that the multiple
accusations towards
Co-Chairs, and of course,
the current request to
recall is suspicious,
unfair, and in bad faith. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">The
recall seems to be a sort of
intimidatory attempt of
revenge for the mere fact
that their proposals did not
reach consensus.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">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. </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">To
me, these are all relevant
elements the Board needs to
consider.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">Regards,</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">Lucilla</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">Il
giorno mer 18 nov 2020 alle
ore 23:03 Ibeanusi Elvis <<a
href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a>>
ha scritto:</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border-style:none none
none
solid;border-left-width:1pt;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm
0cm 0cm
6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">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</p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">On
Nov 18, 2020, at
21:04, Wijdane Goubi
<<a
href="mailto:goubi.wijdane@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><span
style="font-size:10pt;font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif"> </span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">Dear
community,</span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><span
style="font-size:12pt;font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif;color:rgb(136,136,136)"
lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">
<span
style="font-size:12pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">
<span
style="font-size:12pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">
<span
style="font-size:12pt;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:rgb(44,45,48)">discrete</span>,
distinguished
and notable
reasons.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">
<span
style="font-size:12pt;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:1pt none windowtext;padding:0cm">these targets are often
hard to
achieve,</span></strong> which
creates a lot of
pressure on
them.
</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt">
<span
style="font-size:12pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:36pt;line-height:115%">
<span
style="font-size:12pt;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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:36pt;line-height:115%">
<span
style="font-size:12pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times
New
Roman",serif"
lang="EN-US">Cheers,</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:36pt;line-height:115%">
</p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">Le mer. 18 nov. 2020 à 10:03, Taiwo Oyewande
<<a
href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a>>
a écrit :</p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="border-style:none
none none
solid;border-left-width:1pt;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding:0cm
0cm 0cm
6pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><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" rel="noreferrer"
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" rel="noreferrer"
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" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a
href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt">_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote>
</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>