<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Don't put "we" in this.<br>
You may conclude it yourself.</p>
<p>For me and for other people it is very clear the text says the
Recall Committee will "determine the outcome of the recall".
That's it, for most you may not like how it currently is.</p>
<p>And mixing it with 3.6 shows that lack of touch to read and
understand the CPM. How on earth is possible the Chairs can vary
the process that as a result could benefit themselves ? What is
the emergency involved in it ?<br>
Are you suggesting the current Chairs to fasttrack a proposal to
change the current rules before the current Recall process is
concluded in order to these new rules apply to themselves ?</p>
<p>What an concerning succession of happenings we are having to face
in this forum ! This is unprecedented anywhere else in the world
in similar forums from my knowledge. <br>
I really hope both Appeall Committe and Board of Directors of
AfriNic can help to bring some balance to this current and odd
situation.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/11/2020 19:28, Wijdane Goubi
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAKKt+fBM5fjo7vQFax2z0Uf_1EEQG0-SpXi-aFyNFiDPn6DV0A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<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" 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 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" 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">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>