<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Good, we will hold our fire awaiting the following of the CPM.</p>
<p>Thanks for the guide.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Simply,</p>
<p>Daniel<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/11/2020 1:14 pm, Sunday Folayan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b7231de8-2704-0f96-473a-a2cf833f9a99@skannet.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hello Wijdane,</p>
<p>I am not for or against the recall, but the endless suggestions
at variance to the CPM will not help.</p>
<p>The CPM is very clear as to the process for handling this
issue, and we should stop throwing any argument under the guise
of disagreement. (Bullets simply for easy reading)<br>
</p>
<p><b>3.5 Conflict Resolution</b><b><br>
</b><b> - Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair
at any time, </b><b><br>
</b></p>
<p><b> - upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC
Board of Directors. </b><b><br>
</b></p>
<p><b> - The request must be supported by at least five (5) other
persons from the Working Group. </b><b><br>
</b></p>
<p><b> - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall
committee, </b><b><br>
</b></p>
<p><b> - excluding the persons requesting the recall and the
Working Group Chairs. </b><b><br>
</b></p>
<p><b> - The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances
of the justification for the recall and determine the outcome.</b><b><br>
</b></p>
<p>For now, let us follow the laid down process.<br>
</p>
<p>If this is not acceptable to you, then initiate a modification
of the policy, to allow the recall or re-affirmation of Chairs
via some form of balloting. <br>
</p>
<p>Allow the Board act in accordance with the CPM by appointing a
recall committee.<br>
</p>
<p>Please leave the recall committee to determine fairness, based
on the submitted justification.</p>
<p>We have always learnt from all actions. We will learn from the
process, and we will do it better next time.<br>
</p>
<p>Sunday.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/22/20 12:00 PM, Wijdane Goubi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKKt+fDT35bDyAqMP-k5V5RP24GjRowd0+zgcZH5xMcetzK_1Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear community,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
As you can all notice, there is a huge disagreement going on
concerning the request to recall the co-chairs, which many
have pointed out to be biased and unjust. Thus, I believe it
would only be fair to organize a vote about whether this
request shall proceed on not. We have always proved as a
community to be efficient in solving issues through the most
democratic and fair ways and I believe this a crucial moment
where we need to do so as well.<br>
<br>
Jeopardizing the reputation and position of two individuals
shouldn’t be as easy as it is, otherwise, it will encourage
individuals in the future to abuse the request of recall
whenever there is a personal motive. Such a serious decision
of recalling the chairs should not lay at the hand of six
people out of a big community whose voice matters as
equally. I believe this will not only be fair to the
co-chairs but also to both parties who seem to argue or
disagree with the request.<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Regards</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 20 nov. 2020
à 15:10, Fernando Frediani <<a
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<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>On 20/11/2020 10:58, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">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"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">🕊✌<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
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:5px
solid
rgb(36,123,5)"
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"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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/"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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:1px solid
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"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">dc@darwincosta.com</a>
<<a
href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
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"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>;
rpd >> AfriNIC Resource
Policy <<a
href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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>
</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>
</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>
</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"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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> </span></p>
<div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US">Dear community,</span></p>
</div>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US"> </span></p>
<p
class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:12pt;margin-left:36pt"> <span
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
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
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
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
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
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
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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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" rel="noreferrer" 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" rel="noreferrer" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" 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"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
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"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
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"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank"
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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
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" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" 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></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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"
rel="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" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<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>