<div dir="auto">Merci Professeur Fyama, <div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Nous vous remercions d'apporter vos contributions scientifiques et professionnelles dans la communauté en dépit de tous vos engagements professionnels.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cela nous inspire à vous prendre en exemple pour aller au delà des intérêts personnels dans ce qui nous RÉUNIT ici. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cordialement. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le jeu. 26 nov. 2020 à 16:54, <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS (Frank Habicht)<br>
2. Re: Policy proposal (Ekaterina Kalugina)<br>
3. Re: REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS (Blaise Fyama)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:44:03 +0300<br>
From: Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:3528fdce-a708-a55c-e1a8-2f124bac7b80@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">3528fdce-a708-a55c-e1a8-2f124bac7b80@geier.ne.tz</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 26/11/2020 15:26, Fernando Frediani wrote:<br>
...<br>
> "3.5.3 - Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any<br>
> time, upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC Board of<br>
> Directors. The request must be supported by at least five (5) other<br>
> persons from the Working Group. The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall<br>
> appoint a recall committee, excluding the persons requesting the recall<br>
> and the Working Group Chairs. The recall committee shall investigate the<br>
> circumstances of the justification for the recall *and determine the<br>
> outcome.*"<br>
<br>
in my opinion "the outcome" clearly means *the outcome of the recall*.<br>
<br>
Frank<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 16:36:23 +0100<br>
From: Ekaterina Kalugina <<a href="mailto:kay.k.prof@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">kay.k.prof@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Sunday Folayan <<a href="mailto:sfolayan@skannet.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sfolayan@skannet.com</a>><br>
Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>>, Abdulrauf<br>
Yamta <<a href="mailto:yamta.a@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">yamta.a@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy proposal<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAHS7WUB0XFqoHYySVShDiipLDrpR0hNJMK06zRpEvroLfQxS7g@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">CAHS7WUB0XFqoHYySVShDiipLDrpR0hNJMK06zRpEvroLfQxS7g@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Sunday, dear community,<br>
<br>
First of all, I would like to point out that I see no reason to withdraw<br>
the policy proposal completely, although some minor editorial changes and<br>
corrections of stylistic and grammatical mistakes might be necessary.<br>
<br>
In regards to its content, a proper discussion from the side of the<br>
community is due.<br>
<br>
>From my side, I do not think that the proposal adds operational burdens to<br>
the board. Rather, in my view, it makes the process of recall more clear<br>
and explicit. The board is already making a decision on whether or not each<br>
request is duly justified and worth appointing a committee. The present<br>
policy just spells out this process and adds a deadline for the board to<br>
make its decision. I think it is a necessary addition as having the board<br>
entertain all recall requests without assessing the justifications can<br>
prove to be a serious waste of the AFRINIC resources in the long run.<br>
<br>
Moreover, setting a recall committee is necessary even if the board decided<br>
that a request is justified. The board here only determines whether or not<br>
the request has legitimate grounds, while the committee is the one<br>
conducting a thorough investigation and making a final report on the issue.<br>
<br>
Secondly, I believe that the evaluation of the appointed committee members<br>
by the community is necessary to ensure the committee's integrity and<br>
ascertain that there are no conflicts of interest. When it comes to a 6<br>
week waiting period, I agree that it is excessive and perhaps could be<br>
shortened as to streamline the process.<br>
<br>
Thirdly, I believe that it is very important that this proposal outlines<br>
the community's participation in every step of the recall process. The<br>
AFRINIC is governed through a bottom up process, so it makes sense that the<br>
ultimate decision-making power shall remain in the hands of the community.<br>
I don't think it would be fair for the recall committee to make such a<br>
decision unilaterally. It would rather make more sense for them to create a<br>
comprehensive report where they outline all facts and conclusions that is<br>
then brought forward to the community for a deciding vote.<br>
<br>
Overall, in my view, this policy contains import clarifications to the<br>
recall process. In addition, it aims to reinforce AFRINIC's governance<br>
values in the sense of keeping the decision making power within the<br>
community.<br>
<br>
I believe this proposal is a valuable addition to the CPM and thus im<br>
looking forward to hear more feedback on this regard from the side of the<br>
community.<br>
<br>
Best wishes,<br>
<br>
Ekaterina<br>
<br>
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020, 09:54 Sunday Folayan <<a href="mailto:sfolayan@skannet.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">sfolayan@skannet.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Good Morning,<br>
><br>
> Apologies for a long email, but ... If it has to be, it has to be and up<br>
> to us.<br>
><br>
><br>
> In order to ensure that we focus on what is helpful, let me point out a<br>
> couple of issues with this proposed policy.<br>
><br>
> Referring to the CPM<br>
><br>
> 3.4 Policy Development Process<br>
> *Anyone can submit a proposal. Policy proposals are submitted to the<br>
> Resource Policy Discussion mailing list (<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>)<br>
> by the author*. AFRINIC will provide administrative support and assist<br>
> the author(s) in drafting the proposal if requested. AFRINIC shall also<br>
> provide relevant facts and statistics if requested during the discussion.<br>
><br>
> One can see that:<br>
><br>
> 1. The submission was sent to <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a> ... This is OK<br>
><br>
> 2. The submission was addressed to the Co-Chairs ... This is Unnecessary<br>
><br>
> 3. Addressing the Co-Chairs could suggest that they must acknowledge ...<br>
> Not really<br>
><br>
> 4. The Co-Chairs must trigger discussions ... Not according to the CPM.<br>
><br>
> 5. The Co-Chairs not acting immediately, could kill a proposal ... Not at<br>
> all<br>
><br>
><br>
> Having outlined the above, let us deal with the substance of the proposal<br>
> - co-chair recall.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The substance of the current recall provision in the CPM is:<br>
><br>
> - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee<br>
><br>
> - The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the<br>
> justification for the recall<br>
><br>
> - The conclusion of the recall committee shall determine the outcome<br>
><br>
><br>
> It is important to therefore note that:<br>
><br>
> - The Appointment of the Recall committee is at the discretion and<br>
> wisdom of the AfriNIC Board.<br>
><br>
> - Beyond appointing a recall committee, the AfriNIC Board does not even<br>
> need to know the merit or otherwise of the recall<br>
> - The recall committee's work/report, does not require the approval of<br>
> the AfriNIC Board.<br>
><br>
> - The entire process does not have any input from the rpd.<br>
><br>
> - The process has never been tested.<br>
><br>
> - The recall committee's modus Operandi is a black-box. Hence until it<br>
> is tested, it is not wise to modify it<br>
><br>
><br>
> The substance of the proposed policy:<br>
><br>
> - The AfriNIC Board shall investigate the circumstances of the<br>
> justification for the recall<br>
><br>
> - The investigation will include community consultations<br>
><br>
> - The AfriNIC Board will junk the recall, if it sees no justification<br>
> for the recall<br>
><br>
> - The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall then appoint a recall committee<br>
><br>
> - There is a time waster - Name Challenge process embedded therein. Pick<br>
> 9 members one at a time for 6 weeks. One Year is gone!<br>
><br>
> - If the Recall committee Stands, it will go ahead and determine if a<br>
> recall is necessary<br>
><br>
> - If a recall if not necessary, its work is done.<br>
><br>
> - If a recall is necessary, it will submit a report to RPD, that will<br>
> then vote whether to recall or not<br>
><br>
> - A Supermajority vote (70%) is needed to affirm the recall<br>
><br>
> - Where the vote is not obtained, the recall also fails.<br>
><br>
><br>
> The substance of this draft proposal seeks to alter the pillar of minimum<br>
> Board involvement, without clearly articulating why.<br>
><br>
> Indeed, it goes ahead to burden the Board with more work.<br>
><br>
> Especially With:<br>
><br>
> (A) The Board shall first investigate into the recall request within 4<br>
> weeks upon receiving the recall request and decide whether the recall<br>
> request is justified or not, after having consulted with the community?s<br>
> opinion in the mailing list.<br>
><br>
><br>
> This is at total variance with the spirit of the current process and<br>
> provisions that simple gives the Board an administrative duty of appointing<br>
> the independent committee that will then go ahead to determine the<br>
> appropriateness of the recall request.<br>
><br>
> The proposal brings the Board into the role of being the RPD umpire, and<br>
> determining the merits or otherwise of the recall request, before setting<br>
> up a committee. Why the need to setup a committee, if it will have<br>
> determined the merit or otherwise of the recall proposal?<br>
><br>
> All other details of the proposal follow the same pattern ... solving a<br>
> perceived problem, without really paying attention to the underlining<br>
> principle that allows flexibility and creativity, without allowing process<br>
> capture.<br>
><br>
> Indeed, proceeding on pushing this proposal through, will take at least<br>
> One Public Policy meeting, and therefore will not meet the needs of the<br>
> current situation.<br>
><br>
> In my humble opinion, I think the Author should withdraw the proposal<br>
> which was definitely submitted in haste, wait for the play of the current<br>
> situation, see the determination of the matter, learn from it, and then use<br>
> the experience to make a proposal that will be better ... but definitely<br>
> not with all those details in the draft proposal that are laced with traps<br>
> and mines, too many for me to begin to enumerate herein.<br>
><br>
> Volunteer work is extensive, demanding and requires a lot of input. Haste<br>
> in not one of those ingredients.<br>
><br>
> Do have a nice day.<br>
><br>
> Sunday.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 11/24/20 2:56 PM, Abdulrauf Yamta wrote:<br>
><br>
> Dear Co-Chairs<br>
> Please find attached a policy proposal named AFRINIC Co-Chair Recall<br>
> process. In view of some current development, and the need to have a recall<br>
> process properly defined we seek that the chairs should seek that this<br>
> proposal be discussed immediately.<br>
> Thanks<br>
><br>
> Abdulrauf *Yamta*<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing listRPD@afrinic.nethttps://<a href="http://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201126/c4944400/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201126/c4944400/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 17:53:55 +0200<br>
From: Blaise Fyama <<a href="mailto:bfyama@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">bfyama@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Kakel Mbumb <<a href="mailto:kakelmbumb@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">kakelmbumb@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<<a href="mailto:CAPehF5f7dcsQ_ZDSvZAH-fWLb4B68eJo2upLBwy4MSXTkhvaqQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">CAPehF5f7dcsQ_ZDSvZAH-fWLb4B68eJo2upLBwy4MSXTkhvaqQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Beau message de paix cher Kakel.<br>
Blaise FYAMA<br>
Msc, PhD.<br>
Professeur Associ?<br>
Secr?taire G?n?ral Acad?mique Honoraire/UL<br>
Doyen de la Facult? des Sciences Informatiques/UPL<br>
Doyen a.i de la Facult? Polytechnique/UPL<br>
Chef de D?partement G?nie Electrique/ESI-UNILU<br>
Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU<br>
Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK<br>
Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET<br>
Tel: +243995579515<br>
Num?ro O.N.I.CIV: 00460<br>
<br>
MSc, PhD.<br>
<br>
Associate Professor<br>
<br>
Honorary Academic Secretary General / UL<br>
<br>
Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science / UPL<br>
<br>
Dean a.i of the Polytechnic Faculty / UPL<br>
<br>
Head of Department of Electrical Engineering / ESI-UNILU<br>
<br>
IT Service Manager / Polytech-UNILU<br>
<br>
IT Consultant BIT / PAEJK<br>
<br>
Member of International Research Conference IRC/WASET<br>
<br>
Phone: +243995579515<br>
<br>
O.N.I.CIV number: 00460<br>
<br>
<br>
Le jeu. 26 nov. 2020 ? 09:06, Kakel Mbumb <<a href="mailto:kakelmbumb@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">kakelmbumb@gmail.com</a>> a ?crit :<br>
<br>
> Bonjour ? tous,<br>
><br>
> Je pense qu'il est important que les textes soient respect?s par rapport<br>
> aux proc?dures ? mener mais surtout qu'il nous faut ?viter de lancer des<br>
> recours ou appels pour des int?r?ts personnels ou par vengeance mais plut?t<br>
> dans un souci de gain communautaire.<br>
><br>
> Une hi?rarchisation du travail de la communaut? est en application et cela<br>
> doit suivre son cours mais sachons qu'il n'est pas logique de retarder les<br>
> choses alors qu'il ya tant de priorit?s ? r?soudre.<br>
><br>
> Soyons UNIS..<br>
><br>
> Cordialement.<br>
><br>
> Le mar. 24 nov. 2020 ? 20:37, <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> a ?crit :<br>
><br>
>> Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
>> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
>> <a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
>> <a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
>> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Today's Topics:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Re: REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS (Daniel Yakmut)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> Message: 1<br>
>> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 20:36:43 +0100<br>
>> From: Daniel Yakmut <<a href="mailto:yakmutd@googlemail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">yakmutd@googlemail.com</a>><br>
>> To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS<br>
>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:981190ff-d084-3863-d309-c04f550be251@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">981190ff-d084-3863-d309-c04f550be251@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
>><br>
>> Good, we will hold our fire awaiting the following of the CPM.<br>
>><br>
>> Thanks for the guide.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Simply,<br>
>><br>
>> Daniel<br>
>><br>
>> On 24/11/2020 1:14 pm, Sunday Folayan wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Hello Wijdane,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I am not for or against the recall, but the endless suggestions at<br>
>> > variance to the CPM will not help.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > The CPM is very clear as to the process for handling this issue, and<br>
>> > we should stop throwing any argument under the guise of disagreement.<br>
>> > (Bullets simply for easy reading)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > *3.5? Conflict Resolution**<br>
>> > **?- Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group Chair at any<br>
>> > time, **<br>
>> > *<br>
>> ><br>
>> > *?- upon written request with justification to the AFRINIC Board of<br>
>> > Directors. **<br>
>> > *<br>
>> ><br>
>> > *?- The request must be supported by at least five (5) other persons<br>
>> > from the Working Group. **<br>
>> > *<br>
>> ><br>
>> > *?- The AFRINIC Board of Directors shall appoint a recall committee, **<br>
>> > *<br>
>> ><br>
>> > *?- excluding the persons requesting the recall and the Working Group<br>
>> > Chairs. **<br>
>> > *<br>
>> ><br>
>> > *?- The recall committee shall investigate the circumstances of the<br>
>> > justification for the recall and determine the outcome.**<br>
>> > *<br>
>> ><br>
>> > For now, let us follow the laid down process.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > If this is not acceptable to you, then initiate a modification of the<br>
>> > policy, to allow the recall or re-affirmation of Chairs via some form<br>
>> > of balloting.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Allow the Board act in accordance with the CPM by appointing a recall<br>
>> > committee.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Please leave the recall committee to determine fairness, based on the<br>
>> > submitted justification.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > We have always learnt from all actions. We will learn from the<br>
>> > process, and we will do it better next time.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Sunday.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On 11/22/20 12:00 PM, Wijdane Goubi wrote:<br>
>> >> Dear community,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> As you can all notice, there is a huge disagreement going on<br>
>> >> concerning the request to recall the co-chairs, which many have<br>
>> >> pointed out to be biased and unjust. Thus, I believe it would only be<br>
>> >> fair to organize a vote about whether this request shall proceed on<br>
>> >> not. We have always proved as a community to be efficient in solving<br>
>> >> issues through the most democratic and fair ways and I believe this a<br>
>> >> crucial moment where we need to do so as well.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Jeopardizing the reputation and position of two individuals shouldn?t<br>
>> >> be as easy as it is, otherwise, it will encourage individuals in the<br>
>> >> future to abuse the request of recall whenever there is a personal<br>
>> >> motive. Such a serious decision of recalling the chairs should not<br>
>> >> lay at the hand of six people out of a big community whose voice<br>
>> >> matters as equally. I believe this will not only be fair to the<br>
>> >> co-chairs but also to both parties who seem to argue or disagree with<br>
>> >> the request.<br>
>> >> Regards<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Le?ven. 20 nov. 2020 ??15:10, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>> a ?crit?:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I am glad to see the same and very repeating only argument<br>
>> >> against this Recall Request is that some (not all) of the authors<br>
>> >> are also authors of 'competing proposals' (as if the PDWG was a<br>
>> >> battle of proposals) and trying to make up as if this was<br>
>> >> something forbidden.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Everything that was done in both the Appeal and the Recall<br>
>> >> Request is done strictly in the line with what the CPM allows so<br>
>> >> there is nothing else others that are moaning about can do other<br>
>> >> than wait for the output.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Please leave with the Board to do its job. It's entirely up to<br>
>> >> them to consider if the justifications given make sense or not.<br>
>> >> Fernando<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On 20/11/2020 10:58, Ekaterina Kalugina wrote:<br>
>> >>> Dear community,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> As Andrew pointed out: "Anyone may request the recall of a<br>
>> >>> Working Group Chair at any time, upon written request with<br>
>> >>> justification to the AFRINIC Board of Directors."<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The problem here is that there are no valid justifications to<br>
>> >>> support the present recall request. As many of the members<br>
>> >>> including myself already pointed out, this recall request is<br>
>> >>> unjustified as it is not based on objective facts. Rather, this<br>
>> >>> request is largely unfounded and supported by biased arguments<br>
>> >>> and bitter emotional accusations. No tangible evidence has been<br>
>> >>> presented to support the case. There is also a serious conflict<br>
>> >>> of interest as some of the signatories happen to be authors of a<br>
>> >>> competing transfer proposal, while others were denied the<br>
>> >>> position of a chair in the previous elections.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> This request is also generally done in bad faith. It's text<br>
>> >>> refers to a number of appeals to justify its legitimacy. Yet,<br>
>> >>> these appeals were all launched by the very same people who<br>
>> >>> signed this recall request. In my view, this is an unfair move<br>
>> >>> that seeks to bend the PDP to the agendas of a few. Such<br>
>> >>> behavior undermines the legitimacy of the whole process and<br>
>> >>> should not be tolerated. Thus, I contend that this recall<br>
>> >>> request lacks enough justifications to be considered legitimate.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Best,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Ekaterina<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2020, 11:23 lucilla fornaro<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Dear Community,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Many pointed out the Board now needs to appoint an impartial<br>
>> >>> recall committee, and that?s what I hope.<br>
>> >>> From my perspective, the recall lacks objective, accurate,<br>
>> >>> and impartial evidence, and it seems to be the consequence<br>
>> >>> of resentment and disappointment.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> "Conclusions" reports a clear example of what I am talking<br>
>> >>> about:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ?The co-chairs continue to ignore the numerous calls to them<br>
>> >>> to take the proposal back for further discussions."<br>
>> >>> This is exactly the opposite of what happened! Co-chairs<br>
>> >>> after a member?s request extended the last call to allow<br>
>> >>> further discussions. This is a fact, and I cannot understand<br>
>> >>> how it is possible to misrepresent it. To me, this is bad<br>
>> >>> faith, and I see no reason for this recall to exist. It is<br>
>> >>> just the last of several attempts to intimidate the<br>
>> >>> community and co-chairs.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Regards,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Lucilla<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Il giorno gio 19 nov 2020 alle ore 22:48 Timothy Ola<br>
>> >>> Akinfenwa <<a href="mailto:akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng</a>>> ha scritto:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> At least this is an objective way forward for me, and<br>
>> >>> yes of course /with the exclusion of the co-chairs and<br>
>> >>> complainants/ as earlier clarified. The main hassle now<br>
>> >>> is getting neutral parties that will serve in the Recall<br>
>> >>> Committee devoid of any bias and intimidation?to finally<br>
>> >>> bring this issue to a close.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ??<br>
>> >>><br>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Engr. Timothy Ola AKINFENWA Senior System?Programmer<br>
>> >>> Information Management & Technology Centre,<br>
>> >>> Osun State University, P.M.B. 4494, Osogbo, Osun State,<br>
>> >>> Nigeria.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> +234 (0) 80?320 70 442;<br>
>> >>> +234 (0) 80?988 97 799<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> *Email: * <a href="mailto:akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng</a>>;<br>
>> >>> <a href="mailto:lordaikins@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lordaikins@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lordaikins@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lordaikins@gmail.com</a>>;<br>
>> >>> <a href="mailto:lordaikins@yahoo.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lordaikins@yahoo.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lordaikins@yahoo.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lordaikins@yahoo.com</a>><br>
>> >>> *Website:* <a href="http://www.uniosun.edu.ng" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">www.uniosun.edu.ng</a> <<br>
>> <a href="http://uniosun.edu.ng/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://uniosun.edu.ng/</a>><br>
>> >>> <<a href="http://www.facebook.com/lordaikins" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/lordaikins</a>><<br>
>> <a href="http://www.twitter.com/lordaikins" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.twitter.com/lordaikins</a>><<a href="http://www.instagram.com/lordaikins" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.instagram.com/lordaikins</a>><<br>
>> <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TimothyOlaAkinfenwa" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TimothyOlaAkinfenwa</a>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> "Be happy with what you have and are, be generous with<br>
>> >>> both, and you won't have to hunt for happiness." ~<br>
>> >>> William E. Gladstone<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 2:00 PM Andrew Alston<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Up until now, I?ve stayed pretty silent on this,<br>
>> >>> because quite frankly ? I have no issues with the<br>
>> >>> chairs and if they stay or go makes very little<br>
>> >>> difference in my life.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> That being said ? the one thing I do care about is<br>
>> >>> the process.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> So ? let?s look at that.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Section 3.5 of the consolidated policy manual states:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ? Anyone may request the recall of a Working Group<br>
>> >>> Chair at any time, upon written request with<br>
>> >>> justification to the AFRINIC Board of Directors. The<br>
>> >>> request must be supported by at least five (5) other<br>
>> >>> persons from the Working Group. The AFRINIC Board of<br>
>> >>> Directors shall appoint a recall committee,<br>
>> >>> excluding the persons requesting the recall and the<br>
>> >>> Working Group Chairs. The recall committee shall<br>
>> >>> investigate the circumstances of the justification<br>
>> >>> for the recall and determine the outcome.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> So ? it is at the discretion of those who requested<br>
>> >>> the recall to do so ? that much is clear ? if we<br>
>> >>> don?t like that ? change the PDP.? The board<br>
>> >>> however, is now obligated under the PDP to appoint a<br>
>> >>> recall committee, as per the above point, that<br>
>> >>> includes the working group chairs and the<br>
>> >>> complainants, and that committee then reviews,<br>
>> >>> deliberates and delivers a verdict. My reading of<br>
>> >>> that is that the committee appointed shall be<br>
>> >>> appointed from the community ? though that may well<br>
>> >>> be a subjective reading of the text. I would hope<br>
>> >>> that the board would endeavor to appoint individuals<br>
>> >>> entirely divorced from this mess on the list who can<br>
>> >>> be objective and impartial in their review of the<br>
>> >>> available evidence and then render a verdict based<br>
>> >>> on hard fact and evidence. But whichever way this<br>
>> >>> happens ? we have a policy process ? and while we<br>
>> >>> may or may not like the outcomes of the policy<br>
>> >>> process ? the process is sacrosanct and must be<br>
>> >>> observed and followed, and if we don?t like what the<br>
>> >>> process says ? the PDP process ?allows for us, as<br>
>> >>> members of the PDP, to change that process through<br>
>> >>> the rough consensus process.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Andrew<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> *From:*<a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dc@darwincosta.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dc@darwincosta.com</a>> <<a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dc@darwincosta.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dc@darwincosta.com</a>>><br>
>> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, 19 November 2020 11:04<br>
>> >>> *To:* Gaby Giner <<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>>; rpd >> AfriNIC<br>
>> >>> Resource Policy <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>><br>
>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] REQUEST TO RECALL THE AFRINIC<br>
>> >>> PDWG CO-CHAIRS<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On 19 Nov 2020, at 07:23, Gaby Giner<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gabyginernetwork@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ?<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Everyone,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> **<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Most of the arguments advanced are irrelevant<br>
>> >>> and completely out of the context of the nature<br>
>> >>> of the demand to recall the co-chairs.<br>
>> >>> Therefore, it would make the whole request null<br>
>> >>> and invalid.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> *Part A:*<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> This part does not have any violations or<br>
>> >>> dishonest acts done by any of the co-chairs.<br>
>> >>> They have had no influence whatsoever on neither<br>
>> >>> the meeting participants nor their reaction<br>
>> >>> (which I don't see the relevance here anyway).<br>
>> >>> This looks like a normal election process to me,<br>
>> >>> not only in this particular field but for<br>
>> >>> everything and everywhere else in the world.<br>
>> >>> Stating otherwise is either na?ve or just<br>
>> >>> clueless. Also, protests from a losing party<br>
>> >>> look like a normal reaction to me in an<br>
>> >>> election, some more sore than others as<br>
>> >>> evidenced by recent presidential elections in<br>
>> >>> the US, but I digress. All of the points made in<br>
>> >>> this part are wholly immaterial and should be<br>
>> >>> dismissed.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> *Part B :*<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> 1.)<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I noticed you keep basing your arguments on "it<br>
>> >>> was observed", "Observed by a participant" and<br>
>> >>> "Following the suspicions". Serious accusations<br>
>> >>> should be based on actual proof and precise<br>
>> >>> arguments: not guesses, suspicions, and some<br>
>> >>> anonymous witnesses and vague insinuations.<br>
>> >>> Anyone can come up with scenarios if they are<br>
>> >>> unfounded and unproven, especially if they are<br>
>> >>> about events that have occurred a very long time<br>
>> >>> ago but were not reported at the exact time.<br>
>> >>> What makes it the best moment now? And why<br>
>> >>> didn't you ask to recall the co-chairs back then<br>
>> >>> if you had all the necessary proof? This makes<br>
>> >>> absolutely no sense because if your intentions<br>
>> >>> are as honest as you claim they are, this should<br>
>> >>> have been handled a while ago and not right<br>
>> >>> after the same community reelected one of the<br>
>> >>> same co-chairs.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Nevertheless, this is a blatant interference in<br>
>> >>> two people's personal life. I hope this behavior<br>
>> >>> won't start encouraging individuals to begin<br>
>> >>> following co-chairs to hotels and anywhere else<br>
>> >>> outside the PPM conference room. We are talking<br>
>> >>> about two people who were brave enough to<br>
>> >>> volunteer to do a job that starts and ends<br>
>> >>> inside the PPM room and in the mailing list.<br>
>> >>> Whatever else they do in their private time<br>
>> >>> shouldn't be of anyone's concern and has nothing<br>
>> >>> to do with their work integrity.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> 2.)<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> There isn't anything wrong with the video, and<br>
>> >>> nothing you have stated appears to exist. I<br>
>> >>> think you are the one that interpreted the<br>
>> >>> meeting in a biased way. The co-chairs simply<br>
>> >>> gave recommendations that they think favor the<br>
>> >>> community and are related to managing the PDP,<br>
>> >>> which is totally in their scope. As long as it's<br>
>> >>> not enforced, then no harm is intended nor done.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> 3.)<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The rpd list in an open space where individuals<br>
>> >>> are free to respond, converse, and argue. As<br>
>> >>> long as no offense or attacks are intended, the<br>
>> >>> freedom to defend oneself should not be censored<br>
>> >>> just because "seniors" as you call it, are<br>
>> >>> involved. Particularly when we all know that<br>
>> >>> there has been a serious history of bullying and<br>
>> >>> unfounded accusations on the list. I'm starting<br>
>> >>> to feel weary of this back-and-forth on this<br>
>> >>> matter, but nevertheless it is still worth<br>
>> >>> reiterating?the RPD list is a fair space where<br>
>> >>> all individuals are equal, and everyone's input<br>
>> >>> is welcome. So your personal feelings should not<br>
>> >>> interfere in your judgment on the work and<br>
>> >>> integrity of the co-chairs, nor in your request<br>
>> >>> to recall them.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> *Part C :*<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> As far as I know, the community handled both the<br>
>> >>> online meeting and election process matters. It<br>
>> >>> is not the co-chair's duty to handle this sort<br>
>> >>> of thing but rather the community members by<br>
>> >>> vote. They only had to manage the discussions<br>
>> >>> and take into consideration the opinions, which<br>
>> >>> they correctly did. Therefore, section (1) is<br>
>> >>> utterly wrong.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> For the rest, let me summarize it like this :<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> All of this seems very suspicious and makes me<br>
>> >>> think that there is some personal motive or<br>
>> >>> agenda behind this request. If the community was<br>
>> >>> discontented with the current co-chairs, it<br>
>> >>> could have easily prevented Abdul Kareem to be<br>
>> >>> reelected again, which was not the case.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> */"The co-chairs continue to ignore the numerous<br>
>> >>> calls to them to take the proposal back for<br>
>> >>> further discussions."/* This is absolutely not<br>
>> >>> true, and it can easily be proven if you just<br>
>> >>> take the time to go back to the previous thread<br>
>> >>> about the policy, extending its last call, and<br>
>> >>> calling for additional comments. The co-chairs<br>
>> >>> have gone back and forth to satisfy the<br>
>> >>> community's concerns and have extended the<br>
>> >>> policy's discussion time. So did the authors who<br>
>> >>> have managed to resolve every issue and improve<br>
>> >>> the policy, but lately no one seemed to have any<br>
>> >>> new or further objections. Logically this would<br>
>> >>> convince the co-chairs to finally give the go<br>
>> >>> signal for the proposal because it can't be<br>
>> >>> stuck forever with the same people who were<br>
>> >>> raising concerns being suddenly quiet. There is<br>
>> >>> no logic at all, and the procedure was followed<br>
>> >>> according to protocol. Therefore, the argument<br>
>> >>> is not valid.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Saying that the co-chairs violated the PDP by<br>
>> >>> suggesting amendments to proposals is no<br>
>> >>> violation in itself because the CPM never<br>
>> >>> mentioned explicitly that they are not allowed<br>
>> >>> to do so. The co-chairs again are within their<br>
>> >>> scope.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The WG is managed by the CPM, which is very<br>
>> >>> clear about the PDP. You have mentioned several<br>
>> >>> times arguments about violations of the PDP<br>
>> >>> etcetera without stating what and where it<br>
>> >>> contradicts what the CPM says. Unless you do<br>
>> >>> that, I don't see the validity of all the<br>
>> >>> related arguments. You can't judge what a<br>
>> >>> violation is based on whether it aligns with<br>
>> >>> your personal agenda or not. There are rules and<br>
>> >>> instructions that have been created to be<br>
>> >>> followed and not subjectively interpreted.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Finally, I totally understand your<br>
>> >>> discontentment with the whole situation since<br>
>> >>> the transfer policies were in a tough<br>
>> >>> competition and since you are the authors of the<br>
>> >>> other proposal. You can be unsatisfied for as<br>
>> >>> long as you can, but let me say that it is no<br>
>> >>> valid excuse or justification to make an<br>
>> >>> unfounded request to recall the co-chairs whose<br>
>> >>> sole job is to manage the PDP. Not only the<br>
>> >>> arguments are invalid and biased, but there is<br>
>> >>> no actual proof to support the claims and<br>
>> >>> accusations, so I urge the board to look into<br>
>> >>> this urgently and dismiss it. Otherwise, the PDP<br>
>> >>> and the AFRINIC community will no longer be the<br>
>> >>> same, which will be a shame.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Just to comment here in between. I don?t think the<br>
>> >>> main cause here is ?discontentment? but rather how<br>
>> >>> this proposal was conducted including last minute<br>
>> >>> changes.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> IMHO and someone has mentioned here on this tread<br>
>> >>> ?collaborative work between all the authors? - well<br>
>> >>> I would definitely agree that this is something that<br>
>> >>> makes a community a better place.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> My only concern with this proposal and all the<br>
>> >>> changes made it on the last call is that the changes<br>
>> >>> were made at wrong stage of the process.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Last but not least, remember the discussion between<br>
>> >>> Cohen and Ronald here couple of weeks ago? Well same<br>
>> >>> discussion is running again on the NANOG<br>
>> >>> mailinglist. And the main concern here is:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ?Where we conservative enough when all those<br>
>> >>> resources were sold?<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ?Are we even seeing this resources back anytime<br>
>> >>> soon? Maybe not.... maybe never...<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> ?Not to mention how many African startups or unborn<br>
>> >>> ISP(s) will have to fight for v4 addresses when<br>
>> >>> those are not anymore available at Afrinic... We all<br>
>> >>> know where they will have to go to......<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I could go even further but I will stop here by<br>
>> >>> saying - What happened in the past can happen again<br>
>> >>> and only time will tell how good or bad this<br>
>> >>> proposal is FOR US.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> As community we need to protect AFRINIC interests<br>
>> >>> instead of individuals benefits....<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> My 2cts.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Thanks, Gaby<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Regards,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Darwin-.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 11:51 AM lucilla fornaro<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Dear Community,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I believe that the multiple accusations<br>
>> >>> towards Co-Chairs, and of course, the<br>
>> >>> current request to recall is suspicious,<br>
>> >>> unfair, and in bad faith.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The recall seems to be a sort of<br>
>> >>> intimidatory attempt of revenge for the mere<br>
>> >>> fact that their proposals did not reach<br>
>> >>> consensus.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I was not a member of Afrinic when Co-chairs<br>
>> >>> were elected, but based on what is written<br>
>> >>> on the recall, I cannot understand how<br>
>> >>> Co-chairs are to be considered responsible<br>
>> >>> for previous Co-chairs' resignation.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> According to paragraph 1, I understand<br>
>> >>> authors? are suggesting an ex-parte<br>
>> >>> communication, once again without<br>
>> >>> documentation. The point is, every single<br>
>> >>> human behavior might be misunderstood, that<br>
>> >>> is why without shreds of evidence, these<br>
>> >>> kinds of accusations should not even be<br>
>> >>> mentioned.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I feel the recall is more personal than<br>
>> >>> based on facts. The recall's main supporters<br>
>> >>> are those authors that have seen their<br>
>> >>> proposals rejected, as well as someone who<br>
>> >>> has lost elections to the current Co-chairs.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The recall is a mere list of accusations of<br>
>> >>> presumable and never confirmed violations<br>
>> >>> perpetrated by Co-chairs since the beginning<br>
>> >>> of their office. Without evidence or a clear<br>
>> >>> and specific reference to the CPM,<br>
>> >>> indictments are inappropriate and meaningless.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Another sign of the resentment and hostility<br>
>> >>> comes not only from the recall but also from<br>
>> >>> the previous discussions where it was clear<br>
>> >>> that the main goal was to silence some other<br>
>> >>> members of the community to make sure their<br>
>> >>> proposals had no objections. The anger is<br>
>> >>> clear from the way the recall is written and<br>
>> >>> the manipulative language used. Again, the<br>
>> >>> unfounded accusations of usurpation and<br>
>> >>> corruption are unacceptable. Authors accused<br>
>> >>> co-chairs when, in reality, and according to<br>
>> >>> their admission, they failed to file a<br>
>> >>> properly formed appeal. This is a very<br>
>> >>> controversial behavior that nothing has to<br>
>> >>> do with Afrinic and its development.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> To me, these are all relevant elements the<br>
>> >>> Board needs to consider.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Regards,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Lucilla<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Il giorno mer 18 nov 2020 alle ore 23:03<br>
>> >>> Ibeanusi Elvis <<a href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a>>> ha scritto:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Dear Community; Dear All,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> After an in-depth review of this current<br>
>> >>> request to recall the Afrinic PDWG<br>
>> >>> co-chairs, I have come to the conclusion<br>
>> >>> that this request is not only biased, it<br>
>> >>> is filled with accusations, personal<br>
>> >>> reasons especially with regards to the<br>
>> >>> event of things of the past month during<br>
>> >>> the last call, attaining consensus and<br>
>> >>> the difficulty in the ratification and<br>
>> >>> implementation of the specific policies<br>
>> >>> due to its conflict with other policies<br>
>> >>> of similar nature. Additionally, this<br>
>> >>> request has no significant proof as well<br>
>> >>> as justification.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Initially, during the policy decision<br>
>> >>> process and the last call period, the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs performed their duties as the<br>
>> >>> representatives of the PDWG, gave every<br>
>> >>> member of the working groups to make<br>
>> >>> their inputs and express their opinions<br>
>> >>> whether in support or against the policy<br>
>> >>> in discussion at the time. Likewise,<br>
>> >>> these opinions, inputs and concerns<br>
>> >>> expressed by the WG were been put into<br>
>> >>> consideration to make the best decision<br>
>> >>> that works best for the AFRINIC RIR and<br>
>> >>> focus on the development and evolution<br>
>> >>> of the internet in the African region.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Additionally, during the AFRINIC Virtual<br>
>> >>> PPM, the idea that the co-chairs made no<br>
>> >>> effort to make sure that the WG<br>
>> >>> understood the Pros and Cons of the<br>
>> >>> policy is outrightly accusation with no<br>
>> >>> profound justification or proof. As I<br>
>> >>> can recall, during the commencement of<br>
>> >>> the AFRINIC Virtual PPM, the co-chairs<br>
>> >>> not only described the each policy up<br>
>> >>> for the discussion but they also pointed<br>
>> >>> out the pros and cons of each policy and<br>
>> >>> as well, gave the authors of the<br>
>> >>> policies the opportunity to elaborately<br>
>> >>> speak on the significance, importance<br>
>> >>> and value of their policies, and how it<br>
>> >>> fits with the grand goal of the RIR<br>
>> >>> which is the development of the internet<br>
>> >>> in the region, which the participants/WG<br>
>> >>> whom participated in the virtual PPM<br>
>> >>> expressed their concerns, opinions and<br>
>> >>> objections.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Finally, in addition to the fact that<br>
>> >>> this request is compounded with<br>
>> >>> emotional statements, lack of concrete<br>
>> >>> evidence and biases; with the person<br>
>> >>> behind this request as well as the<br>
>> >>> listed signatories of this request, i<br>
>> >>> can firmly adhere to the ideology that<br>
>> >>> this request was specifically made out<br>
>> >>> of emotional sentiments and<br>
>> >>> self-indulgent feeling of sadness due to<br>
>> >>> the result/outcome and the rightful<br>
>> >>> procedures taken of the well-debated<br>
>> >>> ?Inter-RIR Policy Proposal? which had<br>
>> >>> three conflicting proposals.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Best regards,<br>
>> >>> Elvis<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Nov 18, 2020, at 21:04, Wijdane<br>
>> >>> Goubi <<a href="mailto:goubi.wijdane@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:goubi.wijdane@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Dear community,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I have read the recall document and<br>
>> >>> have found it based on very<br>
>> >>> subjective and personal reasons,<br>
>> >>> which makes sense in a way because<br>
>> >>> of how the last policy that has<br>
>> >>> reached consensus, was in a constant<br>
>> >>> competition with other related<br>
>> >>> proposals.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> First of all, as far as I can<br>
>> >>> remember, the co-chairs have always<br>
>> >>> asked the community to give decent<br>
>> >>> explanations of what raises their<br>
>> >>> concerns, but instead, there were<br>
>> >>> constant personal attacks, unrelated<br>
>> >>> subjects and arguments and no more<br>
>> >>> unaddressed concerns.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Dragging the co-chairs and accusing<br>
>> >>> them of some serious accusations<br>
>> >>> just because one proposal reached<br>
>> >>> consensus and others did not, proves<br>
>> >>> again that this recall is based on<br>
>> >>> personal guesses and speculations<br>
>> >>> with no discrete, distinguished and<br>
>> >>> notable reasons.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Our community seems not to be, sadly<br>
>> >>> enough, a stress-free working<br>
>> >>> environment. The co-chairs always<br>
>> >>> have to deal with targets set by the<br>
>> >>> community, and *these targets are<br>
>> >>> often hard to achieve,*?which<br>
>> >>> creates a lot of pressure on them.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I substantially believe that the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs are not taking a side and<br>
>> >>> are perfectly respecting one of the<br>
>> >>> most important values in the CPM<br>
>> >>> which is fairness. They care enough<br>
>> >>> to assess their performance by<br>
>> >>> respecting the CPM, Not taking sides<br>
>> >>> but actually discussing each policy<br>
>> >>> on its own and most importantly<br>
>> >>> giving enough time to solve the<br>
>> >>> community?s concerns.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I strongly believe that what we do<br>
>> >>> need more is to be objective in the<br>
>> >>> way we judge things, and actually<br>
>> >>> stop having unfair opinions in order<br>
>> >>> to have more clarity, lack of bias,<br>
>> >>> and often transparent obviousness of<br>
>> >>> the truth.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Cheers,<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Le?mer. 18 nov. 2020 ??10:03, Taiwo<br>
>> >>> Oyewande <<a href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a>>><br>
>> >>> a ?crit?:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> I will like to believe that the<br>
>> >>> recall request sent to the board<br>
>> >>> is to permit a form of election<br>
>> >>> for the community to either vote<br>
>> >>> to remove or retain the serving<br>
>> >>> co chairs. As the board didn?t<br>
>> >>> vote/ appoint the cochairs<br>
>> >>> therefore, they have no powers<br>
>> >>> to remove them.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> This recall seems like an<br>
>> >>> attempt to hijack the community<br>
>> >>> through the back door. I can see<br>
>> >>> that the petition was signed? by<br>
>> >>> 1.? one person who lost<br>
>> >>> elections in Kampala to the<br>
>> >>> current Co-chairs,<br>
>> >>> 2. authors of competing proposal<br>
>> >>> with our Inter RIR policy,<br>
>> >>> 3. a member whose right was<br>
>> >>> suspended after he violated? the<br>
>> >>> CoC.<br>
>> >>> 4. A member who shamefully made<br>
>> >>> frivolous allegation in Uganda?<br>
>> >>> using a fake profile among others.<br>
>> >>> This list of petitioners makes<br>
>> >>> me wonder if this is a personal<br>
>> >>> vendetta.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> The petition to me borders<br>
>> >>> around the co chairs using<br>
>> >>> initiative to take decisions. It<br>
>> >>> seems that some party ?the power<br>
>> >>> brokers? are aggrieved that they<br>
>> >>> are not been consulted before<br>
>> >>> the co chairs make decisions<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Another funny allegation is that<br>
>> >>> the co chairs wasted the time of<br>
>> >>> the community by not passing<br>
>> >>> policies in Angola - this is a<br>
>> >>> misleading argument as<br>
>> >>> discussing policies to improve<br>
>> >>> them is never a waste of time.<br>
>> >>> Unfortunately when they decided<br>
>> >>> to make sure that polices are<br>
>> >>> resolved during the last PPM.<br>
>> >>> The exact same people complained.<br>
>> >>> I guess the co-chairs can never<br>
>> >>> do right in their sight.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Finally, as one of the authors<br>
>> >>> of the competing proposals in<br>
>> >>> Angola. I will like to clearly<br>
>> >>> state that the co-chairs sent<br>
>> >>> all authors of competing policy<br>
>> >>> proposals to try and consolidate<br>
>> >>> the policies. My co-author and i<br>
>> >>> had several meeting with Jordi<br>
>> >>> but the authors of the third<br>
>> >>> proposal totally refused the<br>
>> >>> offer to join heads to produce<br>
>> >>> one proposal. This now makes me<br>
>> >>> wonder how they derived the<br>
>> >>> claim that the co-chairs tried<br>
>> >>> to force the consolidation when<br>
>> >>> they where not even present.<br>
>> >>> I will like to clearly state<br>
>> >>> that the co-chairs did not<br>
>> >>> interfere in our meetings. Hence<br>
>> >>> the call on stage in Angola to<br>
>> >>> find out our resolve from the<br>
>> >>> said meeting.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> My input.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Kind regards.<br>
>> >>> Taiwo<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> > On 18 Nov 2020, at 07:31, Owen<br>
>> >>> DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a><br>
>> >>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> > ?Speaking strictly as myself,<br>
>> >>> not representing any<br>
>> >>> organization or company:<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> > I couldn?t agree more. This<br>
>> >>> recall petition is entirely<br>
>> >>> specious and without merit.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> > As to the supposed reasons and<br>
>> >>> evidence supporting the removal<br>
>> >>> of the co-chairs, the following<br>
>> >>> problems exist with the PDF<br>
>> >>> provided to the community (this<br>
>> >>> may not be a comprehensive list,<br>
>> >>> but it certainly covers enough<br>
>> >>> to indicate that the PDF is not<br>
>> >>> a basis for removal of the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs):<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> > A: There is nothing<br>
>> >>> prohibiting the recruitment of<br>
>> >>> people to participate in<br>
>> >>> AfriNIC, in fact<br>
>> >>> >? ? it is encouraged.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? I fail to understand what<br>
>> >>> bearing the resignation of the<br>
>> >>> co-chair and failure to elect a<br>
>> >>> > co-chair in Dakar has on the<br>
>> >>> legitimacy of the current<br>
>> >>> chairs. Indeed, the supposed<br>
>> >>> > controversial election refers<br>
>> >>> to Kampala which really only<br>
>> >>> applies to one of the two<br>
>> >>> > current serving co-chairs as<br>
>> >>> the other was recently<br>
>> >>> re-elected in the AfriNIC virtual<br>
>> >>> > meeting.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? While I agree that singing<br>
>> >>> a national anthem of one of the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs in celebration of<br>
>> >>> >? ? the election result is a<br>
>> >>> bit uncouth, I see no relevance<br>
>> >>> here. It occurred after the<br>
>> >>> > election was over and<br>
>> >>> therefore could not have altered<br>
>> >>> the outcome of the election.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? The ?protests? were the<br>
>> >>> sour grapes of a small (but<br>
>> >>> vocal) minority of the community.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? As to ?Finding 1?, this is<br>
>> >>> outside of the control of the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs that were elected<br>
>> >>> >? ? in Kampala and thus has no<br>
>> >>> bearing on the discussion here.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? As such, I submit that<br>
>> >>> section A is wholly without<br>
>> >>> merit and is a blatant attempt to<br>
>> >>> >? ? malign the current<br>
>> >>> co-chairs without substance.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> > B: Paragraph 1 is nearly<br>
>> >>> impossible to parse, but if I<br>
>> >>> understand the authors? intended<br>
>> >>> > meaning, they are claiming<br>
>> >>> that the co-chairs were somehow<br>
>> >>> taken to a hotel for<br>
>> >>> >? ? some form of improper<br>
>> >>> ex-parte communication. Further,<br>
>> >>> they appear to be claiming that<br>
>> >>> >? ? they asked the board to<br>
>> >>> investigate this allegation, but<br>
>> >>> the board didn?t do so and<br>
>> >>> >? ? they therefor have no<br>
>> >>> evidence to support this claim.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? There is so much wrong with<br>
>> >>> this that it is difficult to<br>
>> >>> dignify it with a response,<br>
>> >>> > nonetheless, I will do so<br>
>> >>> here. First, merely taking the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs to a hotel hardly<br>
>> >>> >? ? seems like a nefarious act.<br>
>> >>> I, myself have been known to<br>
>> >>> enjoy a meal or a drink or two<br>
>> >>> >? ? with co-chairs of various<br>
>> >>> RIRs. Surely the co-chairs are<br>
>> >>> not denied a social life merely<br>
>> >>> > because of their position.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? There is no evidence that<br>
>> >>> any sort of undue influence was<br>
>> >>> exerted through any ex-parte<br>
>> >>> > communication that may have<br>
>> >>> occurred during this alleged<br>
>> >>> outing as indicated by the<br>
>> >>> > authors? own words ?The board<br>
>> >>> did not act as nothing was<br>
>> >>> reported back.?<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> > Paragraph 2 I reviewed the<br>
>> >>> video referenced.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? I did not see evidence of<br>
>> >>> bias. I did not see evidence of<br>
>> >>> incapability or incompetence.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? I saw a good faith effort<br>
>> >>> to be courteous and collegial<br>
>> >>> with the authors of two competing<br>
>> >>> > policies and an effort to see<br>
>> >>> if the authors were willing to<br>
>> >>> work together to consolidate<br>
>> >>> >? ? their policies. I saw a<br>
>> >>> lack of cooperation by the both<br>
>> >>> policy authors which the chairs<br>
>> >>> > attempted to navigate.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? I will admit that the<br>
>> >>> chairs may have pushed a little<br>
>> >>> harder than I think was<br>
>> appropriate<br>
>> >>> > towards encouraging the<br>
>> >>> authors to work together, but<br>
>> >>> that?s a difficult judgment call<br>
>> >>> >? ? in the circumstance and<br>
>> >>> it?s quite clear that the chairs<br>
>> >>> stopped well short of the point<br>
>> >>> >? ? of overcoming any<br>
>> >>> intransigence by the authors. As<br>
>> >>> such, I see no harm to the PDP<br>
>> >>> in their<br>
>> >>> > conduct.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? While I don?t agree with<br>
>> >>> all of the decisions made by the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs, especially the AS0<br>
>> >>> >? ? ROA proposal, as I stated<br>
>> >>> on the list at the time, I<br>
>> >>> recognize the legitimacy of their<br>
>> >>> > decision and the fact that<br>
>> >>> people of good conscience can<br>
>> >>> view the same set of facts and/or<br>
>> >>> >? ? the same issues<br>
>> >>> differently. The default<br>
>> >>> position should be no consensus.<br>
>> >>> A co-chair that<br>
>> >>> >? ? is not confident that there<br>
>> >>> is strong community consensus<br>
>> >>> for a proposal should absolutely<br>
>> >>> > declare no-consensus and that<br>
>> >>> is exactly what happened here.<br>
>> >>> No consensus is not fatal or<br>
>> >>> >? ? even really harmful to a<br>
>> >>> proposal. It just means that the<br>
>> >>> authors need to continue their<br>
>> >>> > efforts to build consensus<br>
>> >>> among the community either<br>
>> >>> through further discussion on the<br>
>> >>> > mailing list or by modifying<br>
>> >>> the proposal to address the<br>
>> >>> objections. In some cases, it may<br>
>> >>> >? ? be that a proposal simply<br>
>> >>> isn?t something the community<br>
>> >>> wants. I don?t think that applies<br>
>> >>> >? ? to AS0 ROAs, but in such a<br>
>> >>> case, the rejection of the<br>
>> >>> proposal is a perfectly valid<br>
>> >>> outcome.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? I believe the failure of<br>
>> >>> the AfriNIC community to include<br>
>> >>> a mechanism for the community to<br>
>> >>> > express that a proposal should<br>
>> >>> not be recycled or further<br>
>> >>> discussed because it is simply<br>
>> >>> >? ? not wanted by the community<br>
>> >>> is one of the biggest problems<br>
>> >>> in the AfriNIC PDP. That failure<br>
>> >>> >? ? is the main reason that<br>
>> >>> proposals like Resource Review<br>
>> >>> plagued the community for so long.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? The authors of this<br>
>> >>> so-called recall petition admit<br>
>> >>> that their appeal of the co-chairs<br>
>> >>> > decision was unsuccessful<br>
>> >>> because they failed to file a<br>
>> >>> properly formed appeal, yet they<br>
>> >>> > mention this as if it is<br>
>> >>> somehow an indictment of the<br>
>> >>> co-chairs.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? Time spent discussing<br>
>> >>> proposals is not wasted, even if<br>
>> >>> the proposals aren?t advanced.<br>
>> >>> >? ? Such a claim is contrary to<br>
>> >>> the spirit and intent of the PDP<br>
>> >>> and the values of the RIR<br>
>> >>> > system. From what I saw, the<br>
>> >>> major obstacle to the resolution<br>
>> >>> of objections was more about<br>
>> >>> >? ? the intransigence of the<br>
>> >>> authors than anything under the<br>
>> >>> control of the co-chairs.<br>
>> >>> > Notably, the group filing this<br>
>> >>> petition contains many of the<br>
>> >>> most intransigent proposal<br>
>> >>> > authors in the region.<br>
>> >>> ><br>
>> >>> >? ? While I do not believe it<br>
>> >>> appropriate for co-chairs to<br>
>> >>> tell someone to ?retire? or ?go<br>
>> >>> away?,<br>
>> >>> >? ? and as such won?t defend<br>
>> >>> the general tone of either of<br>
>> >>> the messages referenced, I think<br></blockquote></div>