<div dir="ltr"><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div>We can all conclude from the recent discussions going on in the last RPD posts that the CPM is very vague and unclear about the outcome of the recall’s committee and the process of the request of recall in general. It is unfair to juggle with the faith and reputation of two important individuals that have devoted so much for this community, on personal interpretations of a process that should have been well defined and with clear guidelines.<br><br>Therefore, and according to the section 3.6 of the CPM “The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required”, I am urging the chairs to consider varying the process in this specific case of emergency, to discuss this proposal and come out with its best version so as to fill the void we are facing in the CPM. <br><div><br></div><div>Kind regards</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 27 nov. 2020 à 05:19, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">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 will try to put below the many reasons I strongly oppose this
proposal. I ask people to take the time to read and understand
certain details that must be taken in consideration when trying to
change such critical thing for a Policy Development Forum,
specially those who have been inflamed by the recent events and
that may be trying to push for this unreasonable change in what a
seems a desperate try to having some people protected.<br>
</p>
<p>- In ANY Policy Development Forum there must be a mechanism to
recall or dismiss the Chairs and that is a perfectly thing to
happen. That in most places in most RIRs lies in the hands of the
Board of Directors of the RIR directly or indirectly and that is
perfectly fine for those who have been surprised with it. And that
mechanism DOES NOT necessarily have to have a final saying from
the community. There are many reasons for that among it: <br>
<br>
1) The difficulty to leave it in the hands of the community for
any situation and to be able to act quickly when necessary for the
protection of the RIR.<br>
2) Not necessarily the community will taken a decision that goes
towards the interest of the members of the RIR. Rather then a fair
and impartial decision it will always be a political decision
which is a tragedy in such situations.<br>
3) <span lang="en"><span title="">The counterweight weights system that must
exist in this ecosystem.<br>
4) It is much convenient to leave in the hands of the Board of
Directors than delay this type of decision for 'who knows how
long'(several months?) to gather community together to take a
decision. Board of Directors must be able to act quickly when
necessary to remove a bad Co-Chair who may be seriously
damaging PDWG or the RIR.<br>
5) The Board of Director is to be considered a trustable body
to take such an important decision not only the benefit of the
RIR but also most of the time in the benefit of the community.
They have the proper means to do that with the help of staff
and other people to take an proper and impartial decision.<br>
6) The Board of Directors WILL NOT simply take this decision
as their pleasure, but only in very exceptional situations
when needed and taking in consideration the justifications
presented and asked by a certain numbers of the community.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- It is not true what the Summary of the
proposal says that the CPM does not have a full mechanism to
complete a recall process. Despite some people may not like it
given the actual circumstances, the process exist, is clear
how it works and is similar to how it's done in other RIRs,
therefore there is nothing exotic or different here in
AfriNic.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- There are reasons here and in other places
the removal of Co-Chairs is in the hands of the Board. That
was well considered when it was first thought and written.
Perhaps people supporting this proposal may not have full
knowledge about these reasons. Does anyone find wrong after a
proposal reached consensus it has to be submitted for the
Board's ratification ? Probably not, and the same way there
are proper reasons for that. Otherwise following the improper
justifications of the proposal someone may also say that
proposals should also not have to be ratified by the Board
which would be something unprecedented.<br>
</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Limiting the recall request for the PDWG
Chair(s) is so absurd that if a recall request is denied by
the Board it means the Co-Chair at the time will be free to
commit any mistakes anf faults they wish with no left
mechanism at all to be Recalled until the end of their term.
There MUST BE no limit of recall requests as long there are
justifications and proper evidences for that. It is up to the
Board to decide if that request make sense or not and accept
or dismiss it. It is unthinkable to consider people will just
fill Recall requests just for pleasure without any evidences
of serious faults of the Co-Chairs. It is fair enough to trust
the Board of Director will do their job properly and seriously
on such situations.<br>
</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Having the board to 'consult the
community' is something totally unnecessary. It is up to them
to do that checking and verification they feel necessary and
therefore this burden must not be imposed to them that have
the necessary mechanisms to find out about the evidences
presented.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Having the Board to investigate the
"challenged integrity" of the members of the Recall Committee
is another complete absurd and a huge burden to the Board. We
should trust the Board will take necessary consideration to
appoint members and not have the risk to go into a endless
process made not to work of several steps in order to not have
the case resolved. Board decision should not be at the
validation of the community as proposed. This proposal is
giving excessive and unnecessary work to the Board in a exotic
scenario that is unknown in any other forums worldwide.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- The proposal uses another exotic term
"super majority" for the Board votes without specifying what
that means in that scenario which suggest the proposal was
written with a lot of passion and little thinking or
consideration about it.<br>
</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Adding a vote recall for the community is
the most absurd thing in the proposal. That takes over the
well established mechanism that lies in the hands of the Board
of Directors to pass it to the community that will probably
not have by far the necessary mechanisms to check the
evidences and decide on such complex matter. Also that might
put in serious danger the interests of the RIR to have such
process out of the control of the Board of Directors. Besides
creates a totally new and exotic mechanism that doesn't exist
anywhere else in the world.<br>
</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- In analogy let's compare the Recall
process with a trial. Has anyone even seen a non-criminal
trial decision decided "by votes" and not by judges ? No that
is taken by professional judges who have the means and the
trust to take such complex decision with impartiality. If the
final decision is based in a vote that becomes a pure
political process and puts in danger the interest of RIR.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- For the "final vote Recall" the proposal
puts an absurd 70% "supermajority" which seems to be meant in
order to never be able to Recall any chairs. In such
situations the risk of vote manipulation is high and 70% would
hardly be reached bringing again a serious danger to the RIR.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">- The whole proposal is over-complicated,
takes time and seems to be make to never work. There are so
many steps involved and times to go through that in practice
it voids the workable existent and efficient process currently
available in the CPM.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">I agree with the statement that: "</span></span><span lang="en"><span title="">The substance of this draft proposal seeks to alter
the pillar of minimum Board involvement, without clearly
articulating why.", that it burdens the Board with a lot of
extra work and that this proposal was submitted in haste and
biased by the current situation.</span></span></p>
<p><span lang="en"><span title="">Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</span></span></p>
<div>On 24/11/2020 10:56, Abdulrauf Yamta
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Co-Chairs</div>
<div>Please find attached a policy proposal named AFRINIC
Co-Chair Recall process. In view of some current
development, and the need to have a recall process properly
defined we seek that the chairs should seek that this
proposal be discussed immediately.</div>
<div>Thanks </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12.8px">Abdulrauf <b>Yamta</b></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</blockquote></div>