<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Dear Community,<div><br></div><div><div>I do agree that the current recall process that is taking place requires clear instructions to keep the community in the loop and give more transparency to the procedure. </div><div>In the past, we may have not given much importance to the incompletion of the call of request section in the CPM, but now is the time to fix it. </div><div>These are the right circumstances for the chairs to vary the process of the PDP due to the urgency of the matter and its qualification as an emergency. It would be in the interest of the entire community.</div><div>Confrontation is part of the discussion, and discussion is what makes this community grow. As far as I can see it is not involving any diatribe. </div><div>We should give priority to discussing this proposal and defining the right instructions for the call of the request process.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Lucilla</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno sab 28 nov 2020 alle ore 08:58 Wijdane Goubi <<a href="mailto:goubi.wijdane@gmail.com">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a>> ha scritto:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div>First of all, having a series of appeals against decisions made by the co-chairs does not necessarily mean that they are not doing their jobs but instead means that their decisions do not personally please some people as they please some others.<div><br>Secondly, defending the involved individuals does not necessarily mean that we are taking their side but rather that it is a matter that concerns the entirety of the community and that should be discussed by all parties equally. That is the core value of the RPD after all. Logically, you know you can't do much to help because at the end of the day it is up to the committee alongside with the community to decide, but it is so not fair to sit back and watch it happen, for one reason which is we all legitimately acknowledge their point of view and their purpose here which is solving the community’s concerns.</div><div><br>Thirdly, instead of attempting to remove the co-chairs form their places and make whoever is trying to defend them look like they are violating the CPM I suggest to actually point out where the co-chairs failed in their job and finding areas of agreement rather than disagreement, it helps put edges around the problem.</div><div><br>Finally, I would like to say that there’s a value in having conversations with people with whom we don’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with. We might evolve our perspective on a certain decision taken by the co-chairs. We might bolster our argument for why we disagree. All while respecting one another and acting like grown-ups in order to build understanding and learning for all parties.<br><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Wijdane goubi</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 27 nov. 2020 à 22:41, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Hi PDWG</div><div><br></div><div>For the first time in the history of the AFRINIC policy development process, we have a series of appeals against decisions made by co-chairs, as well as a request for recall of the co-chairs by members of the PDWG. An unprecedented situation yet necessary.</div><div><br></div><div>The “check and balance” and accountability mechanisms of the bottom-up policy development process AFRINIC adhered to long ago are being exercised.</div><div><br></div><div>While the rules are clear and demand submission and respect of all entitled parties decisions, what we are now seeing, does call for reflection:</div><div><br></div><div>⁃ Attempts to deny the right to appeal co-chairs decisions</div><div>⁃ Attempts to deny the right to recall co-chairs</div><div>⁃ Trials of intent</div><div>⁃ Intimidations and falsehood</div><div>⁃ Attempt to change the rules of engagement on the fly</div><div>⁃ A clear demonstration of participation in the PDP without understanding or adherence to the rules and principles.</div><div><br></div><div>All PDP proceedings and activities are publicly archived and accessible to all and demonstrates and illustrates enough our collective contributions and behaviors for each one of us.</div><div><br></div><div>Have we forgotten that participation in the PDP is by an individual?</div><div><br></div><div>Can’t the individuals involved defend themselves?</div><div><br></div><div>With all that is already documented in the various archives, do we still need all these diatribes, which got added as well to the facts and do not necessarily help the situation and the people?</div><div><br></div><div>Can’t we just let the responsible entities analyse the facts and decide ?</div><div><br></div><div>While the rest of the global internet community is watching us and expect AFRINIC to act responsibly as custodian of core Internet resources, we need to do more and better and that includes above all, upholding check and balance while holding each other accountable.</div><div><br></div><div>Whatever decisions come out should be a source of lessons and improvements and not the end of PDP.</div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,</div><div>--</div><div>Gregoire Ehoumi</div><div><br></div><div><br><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 26, 2020, at 7:26 AM, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>
<div><p>It is incredable how much people wishes to make up stuff to have
their own way at any cost. For everything that is not pleasant to
some people they try to make up stuff in their own favor. That may
explain why there is so much conflict in this forum and how much
people are unwilling to accept the current rules.<br>
</p><p>The other day a person wanted to *completely ignore what is
written in the CPM* that the Board of Directors is responsible for
the Recall and wants to replace it for "a community vote". Now
someone wishes to read the CPM in their own way that the Recall
Committee will not determine anything, just because that person
may not like that way. Well, let's put the CPM text, once again,
very clearly:</p><p>"3.5.3 - 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 <b>and determine the outcome.</b>"</p><p>About the evidence analsys please leave it to the Recall
Committee, it's their job and nonone else.</p><p>Thanks<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 26/11/2020 08:46, lucilla fornaro
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Sunday, dear Community,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I agree with you that we should wait and follow the laid
down rule. However, I would like to clarify a point.</div>
<div>For what concerns the recall committee's purpose and
duties, they can indeed investigate, but they are not asked
to determine whether the chair will be removed or not. </div>
<div>The recall committee can only conclude whether the recall
election shall be held or not. </div>
<div>If the recall is held, then it will be up to the
community to decide about co-chairs removal or not.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is extremely important in this kind of situation to
point out once again that the recall is entirely based on
false accusations and not even a shred of evidence in
support.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lucilla </div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno mar 24 nov 2020 alle
ore 21:16 Sunday Folayan <<a href="mailto:sfolayan@skannet.com" target="_blank">sfolayan@skannet.com</a>>
ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><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>On 11/22/20 12:00 PM, Wijdane Goubi wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><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">lucillafornarosawamoto@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear
Community,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Many pointed
out the Board now needs to appoint an
impartial recall committee, and that’s
what I hope.</div>
<div>From my
perspective, the recall lacks objective,
accurate, and impartial evidence, and it
seems to be the consequence of
resentment and disappointment.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Conclusions"
reports a clear example of what I am
talking about:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>“The
co-chairs continue to ignore the
numerous calls to them to take the
proposal back for further discussions." </div>
<div>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><br>
</div>
<div>Regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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">akin.akinfenwa@uniosun.edu.ng</a>>
ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default">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">
<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-width:5px;border-right-style:solid;border-right-color:rgb(36,123,5)" width="140"><img style="width: 100px; height: 102px;" src="http://uniosun.edu.ng/images/logo.png" 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"><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"><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"><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"><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"><img src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/facebook.png"></a><span> </span><a href="http://www.twitter.com/lordaikins" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><img src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/twitter.png"></a><span> </span><a href="http://www.instagram.com/lordaikins" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><img src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/flickr.png"></a><span> </span><a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+TimothyOlaAkinfenwa" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><img src="http://chrdportal.uniosun.edu.ng/images/icons/google+.png"></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">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="en-KE">
<div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Up until now,
I’ve stayed pretty silent on
this, because quite frankly –
I have no issues with the
chairs and if they stay or go
makes very little difference
in my life.</span></p><div><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">That being said –
the one thing I do care about
is the process.</span></p><div><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">So – let’s look
at that.</span></p><div><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Section 3.5 of
the consolidated policy manual
states:</span></p><div><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br></div><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><div> <br></div><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><div><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br></div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Andrew</span></p><div><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br></div><div><span lang="en-KE"> </span><br></div>
<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">dc@darwincosta.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:dc@darwincosta.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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">gabyginernetwork@gmail.com</a>>;
rpd >> AfriNIC
Resource Policy <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd]
REQUEST TO RECALL THE
AFRINIC PDWG CO-CHAIRS</span></p>
</div>
</div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
<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">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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">
<b>Part C :</b></p><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">
For the rest, let me
summarize it like this
:</p><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-left:36pt">
<br></div><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><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> <br></div><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><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> <br></div><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><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> <br></div><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><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> <br></div><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><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> <br></div><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><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> <br></div><p style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal"><span>My
2cts.</span></p><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36pt;font-stretch:normal;min-height:20.3px"> <br></div>
<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><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
<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">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><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
</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><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
</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><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
</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><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">To me, these are all relevant elements the
Board needs to
consider.</p>
</div>
<div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
</div>
<div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Regards,</p>
</div>
<div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
</div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt">Lucilla</p>
</div>
</div>
</div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
<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">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><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
<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">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</p>
</div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
<div>
<div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><span> </span><br></div>
<div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US">Dear community,</span></p>
</div><div style="margin-left:36pt"><span lang="EN-US"> </span><br></div><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><div style="margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:10pt;margin-left:36pt;line-height:115%">
<br></div>
</div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></div>
<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">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">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">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">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>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing
list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer" 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></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">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></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div><div style="margin-left:36pt"> <br></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">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></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">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></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">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></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">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>
</blockquote>
</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>
<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>
<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" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></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>
_______________________________________________<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>