<div dir="auto"><div><div dir="auto">Hi Wijdane</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Its not an accusation, its a fact that indeed the co-chairs failed.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cochairs, in performing the administrative functions, only facilitate working group discussions where decisions are made by the working group.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Cochairs are expected to be neutral all times.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Moreover, the second co-chair was not running for elections and should have led the WG discussions.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The PDP always ensures that at least one cochair continued serving and managing the working group. The cochair roles are staggering with one cochair term always coming to an end each year. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Please let us raise the level of the discussions from where it seems to be at the moment</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">--</div><div dir="auto">Arnaud</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le sam. 28 nov. 2020 à 12:58, Wijdane Goubi <<a href="mailto:goubi.wijdane@gmail.com">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Dear Fernando,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Please take time to go over again the arguments you have advanced in support of the recall that you are part of. You and the other people involved are accusing the chairs of not taking over the discussion on the Chairs Election and on whether the PPM should have been online or not. Isn’t the chairs election in direct benefit of the co-chairs too?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The only way that the chairs would have taken over that discussion was by varying the process according to the 3.6 CPM section and passing a policy that would help with the situation then, by qualifying it an emergency. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The situation here is not different so I don’t see why you would play that card only when it aligns with your personal opinion.</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 28 Nov 2020, 00:16 Ibeanusi Elvis, <<a href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear community, </p><div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">Commencing with
your interpretation of what the CPM 3.4 Policy Development Process stipulates and
comprehension of the email.</span></p><p style="margin-left:18.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">1)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">First, considering the
issue of addressal to the Co-chairs, the CPM in its wisdom did not indicate
that the submission should or should not be addressed to a specific person(s),
people or group. Besides the required submission to the RPD mailing list,
addressal to individuals that represent the interest of the AFRINIC
organization like the Co-chairs shouldn’t be an issue.</span></p><p style="margin-left:18.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">2)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">An acknowledgement
needed from the co-chairs through an addressal? Not necessarily. A submission
of the proposal to the RPD mailing list which makes it accessible to all, means
it’s been acknowledged by all.</span></p><p style="margin-left:18.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">3)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">According to the CPM 3.3
The Policy Development Working Group (PDWG), “The PDWG has two chairs to
perform its administrative functions”. Thus, prompting discussion related to
the recall process within the RPD mailing list can be considered an
administrative function and adding to the recent development on the recall
process, a discussion is needed. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p style="margin-left:18.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">4)<span style="font-stretch:normal;font-size:7pt;line-height:normal;font-family:"Times New Roman"">
</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">The motive of the
statement “be discussed immediately” does not imply it will kill the proposal.
Rather it moves to infer that actions are needed judging by the constant back
and forth comments in the mailing list related to the recall. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt"><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">Regarding the proposal that has been put forward to
this community,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">First, as you clearly stated, this process has not
been tested and the modus operandi is black-box; it would be only wise to be
extra careful, be cautious with the process of the Recall Committee, and this
current situation being the first of its kind should also receive inputs from
necessary places like the AFRINIC Board, RPD mailing list (the community) etc.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">The Proposed Policy should be made a necessity. First,
it does not seek to alter the pillar of the minimum Board involvement but
rather, it strengthens the pillar of the Recall Process. The Board
justification for the recall investigation is needed to avoid a repetition of
redundant or unwanted recalls when a member disagrees with the co-chair(s)
actions. Similarly, there will be no need for setting up a recall committee if
there is no justification to do so.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">Moreover, the proposal giving the community the
amplified opportunity to evaluate the recall committee member by pushing out
the names to the RPD mailing list is a great move as not only the integrity of
the recall committee members is being gauged but it also avoids conflict of
interest, favoritism, and the politicization of the situation like some people
mentioned. </span><span style="font-size:9pt"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">Nothing is being left in the hands of the community,
the Board only seeks their opinions and participation on certain areas of the
recall process. Remember, the AFRINIC RIR has a bottom-up approach to its
functionality. Likewise, the jurisdiction or ecosystem of this RIR is different
from others, it would be appropriate if we stop comparing it to others in
everything we do.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">Additionally, there is no full mechanism in place for
the completion of the recall process and purpose of this recall proposal is
make the process more explicit and straightforward to evade misinterpretation
which most people do. Equally, I don’t support the ideology that this proposal
should be outrightly withdrawn by the author but rather some editorial
modifications and changes is required to make the proposal due for approval and
implementation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">Finally, the set limitation on the recall request for
the PDWG Chair(s) is essential as it evades the repetition of redundant
requests with baseless justifications. This proposal might be lengthy but as
aforementioned, it strengthens the pillar of the recall process and the purpose
of Conflict Resolution. Also, it makes the comprehension of the recall process
clearer hence its interpretation by being straightforward and unambiguous.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">Nonetheless, I have suggestions on the improvements
and editorial additions and changes that would strengthen the Recall Proposal
which are listed below:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt">First, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">the proposal needs to</span><span style="font-size:9pt"> cuts down on words and the
lengthiness while maintaining the explicit identity that the proposal aims to
achieve</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt"> and</span><span style="font-size:9pt"> an extension </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">is
needed on</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt"> </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">the time given to the both the community
and as the Board to make </span><span style="font-size:9pt">decision</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">s</span><span style="font-size:9pt">, vot</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">e
and so on like</span><span style="font-size:9pt"> (from 2weeks to 4weeks)</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:9pt">,</span><span style="font-size:9pt"> which I believe gives more
time for more sound and clear decisions as to hasty decisions. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9pt"> </span><span style="font-size:9pt">Also, an increase in the recall final vote
from 70% to 75% to affirm the avoidance of doubt within the community and ensure
that the Chair(s) are recalled because he or she is not qualified and not based
on a frivolous or on an emotional footing. </span></p>
</div><div>Best regards. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
<div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Nov 28, 2020, at 7:28, Wijdane Goubi <<a href="mailto:goubi.wijdane@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">goubi.wijdane@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello,</div><div><br></div>We can all conclude from the recent discussions going on in the last RPD posts that the CPM is very vague and unclear about the outcome of the recall’s committee and the process of the request of recall in general. It is unfair to juggle with the faith and reputation of two important individuals that have devoted so much for this community, on personal interpretations of a process that should have been well defined and with clear guidelines.<br><br>Therefore, and according to the section 3.6 of the CPM “The process outlined in this document may vary in the case of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving of some provision of this document is required”, I am urging the chairs to consider varying the process in this specific case of emergency, to discuss this proposal and come out with its best version so as to fill the void we are facing in the CPM. <br><div><br></div><div>Kind regards</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 27 nov. 2020 à 05:19, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><p>I will try to put below the many reasons I strongly oppose this
proposal. I ask people to take the time to read and understand
certain details that must be taken in consideration when trying to
change such critical thing for a Policy Development Forum,
specially those who have been inflamed by the recent events and
that may be trying to push for this unreasonable change in what a
seems a desperate try to having some people protected.<br>
</p><p>- In ANY Policy Development Forum there must be a mechanism to
recall or dismiss the Chairs and that is a perfectly thing to
happen. That in most places in most RIRs lies in the hands of the
Board of Directors of the RIR directly or indirectly and that is
perfectly fine for those who have been surprised with it. And that
mechanism DOES NOT necessarily have to have a final saying from
the community. There are many reasons for that among it: <br>
<br>
1) The difficulty to leave it in the hands of the community for
any situation and to be able to act quickly when necessary for the
protection of the RIR.<br>
2) Not necessarily the community will taken a decision that goes
towards the interest of the members of the RIR. Rather then a fair
and impartial decision it will always be a political decision
which is a tragedy in such situations.<br>
3) <span lang="en"><span title="">The counterweight weights system that must
exist in this ecosystem.<br>
4) It is much convenient to leave in the hands of the Board of
Directors than delay this type of decision for 'who knows how
long'(several months?) to gather community together to take a
decision. Board of Directors must be able to act quickly when
necessary to remove a bad Co-Chair who may be seriously
damaging PDWG or the RIR.<br>
5) The Board of Director is to be considered a trustable body
to take such an important decision not only the benefit of the
RIR but also most of the time in the benefit of the community.
They have the proper means to do that with the help of staff
and other people to take an proper and impartial decision.<br>
6) The Board of Directors WILL NOT simply take this decision
as their pleasure, but only in very exceptional situations
when needed and taking in consideration the justifications
presented and asked by a certain numbers of the community.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- It is not true what the Summary of the
proposal says that the CPM does not have a full mechanism to
complete a recall process. Despite some people may not like it
given the actual circumstances, the process exist, is clear
how it works and is similar to how it's done in other RIRs,
therefore there is nothing exotic or different here in
AfriNic.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- There are reasons here and in other places
the removal of Co-Chairs is in the hands of the Board. That
was well considered when it was first thought and written.
Perhaps people supporting this proposal may not have full
knowledge about these reasons. Does anyone find wrong after a
proposal reached consensus it has to be submitted for the
Board's ratification ? Probably not, and the same way there
are proper reasons for that. Otherwise following the improper
justifications of the proposal someone may also say that
proposals should also not have to be ratified by the Board
which would be something unprecedented.<br>
</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Limiting the recall request for the PDWG
Chair(s) is so absurd that if a recall request is denied by
the Board it means the Co-Chair at the time will be free to
commit any mistakes anf faults they wish with no left
mechanism at all to be Recalled until the end of their term.
There MUST BE no limit of recall requests as long there are
justifications and proper evidences for that. It is up to the
Board to decide if that request make sense or not and accept
or dismiss it. It is unthinkable to consider people will just
fill Recall requests just for pleasure without any evidences
of serious faults of the Co-Chairs. It is fair enough to trust
the Board of Director will do their job properly and seriously
on such situations.<br>
</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Having the board to 'consult the
community' is something totally unnecessary. It is up to them
to do that checking and verification they feel necessary and
therefore this burden must not be imposed to them that have
the necessary mechanisms to find out about the evidences
presented.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Having the Board to investigate the
"challenged integrity" of the members of the Recall Committee
is another complete absurd and a huge burden to the Board. We
should trust the Board will take necessary consideration to
appoint members and not have the risk to go into a endless
process made not to work of several steps in order to not have
the case resolved. Board decision should not be at the
validation of the community as proposed. This proposal is
giving excessive and unnecessary work to the Board in a exotic
scenario that is unknown in any other forums worldwide.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- The proposal uses another exotic term
"super majority" for the Board votes without specifying what
that means in that scenario which suggest the proposal was
written with a lot of passion and little thinking or
consideration about it.<br>
</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- Adding a vote recall for the community is
the most absurd thing in the proposal. That takes over the
well established mechanism that lies in the hands of the Board
of Directors to pass it to the community that will probably
not have by far the necessary mechanisms to check the
evidences and decide on such complex matter. Also that might
put in serious danger the interests of the RIR to have such
process out of the control of the Board of Directors. Besides
creates a totally new and exotic mechanism that doesn't exist
anywhere else in the world.<br>
</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- In analogy let's compare the Recall
process with a trial. Has anyone even seen a non-criminal
trial decision decided "by votes" and not by judges ? No that
is taken by professional judges who have the means and the
trust to take such complex decision with impartiality. If the
final decision is based in a vote that becomes a pure
political process and puts in danger the interest of RIR.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- For the "final vote Recall" the proposal
puts an absurd 70% "supermajority" which seems to be meant in
order to never be able to Recall any chairs. In such
situations the risk of vote manipulation is high and 70% would
hardly be reached bringing again a serious danger to the RIR.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">- The whole proposal is over-complicated,
takes time and seems to be make to never work. There are so
many steps involved and times to go through that in practice
it voids the workable existent and efficient process currently
available in the CPM.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">I agree with the statement that: "</span></span><span lang="en"><span title="">The substance of this draft proposal seeks to alter
the pillar of minimum Board involvement, without clearly
articulating why.", that it burdens the Board with a lot of
extra work and that this proposal was submitted in haste and
biased by the current situation.</span></span></p><p><span lang="en"><span title="">Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</span></span></p>
<div>On 24/11/2020 10:56, Abdulrauf Yamta
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear Co-Chairs</div>
<div>Please find attached a policy proposal named AFRINIC
Co-Chair Recall process. In view of some current
development, and the need to have a recall process properly
defined we seek that the chairs should seek that this
proposal be discussed immediately.</div>
<div>Thanks </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-size:12.8px">Abdulrauf <b>Yamta</b></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer 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 noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div></div></div>