<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Feb 20, 2021, at 5:03 AM, Sylvain Baya <<a href="mailto:abscoco@gmail.com" class="">abscoco@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Dear PDWG,<br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le sam. 20 févr. 2021 à 12:38, Paul Wollner <<a href="mailto:paul.wollner@africaoncloud.net" class="">paul.wollner@africaoncloud.net</a>> a écrit :<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u class=""></u><div class=""><div style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt" class=""><div class="">Dear Community:<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hi Paul,</div><div class="">Thank you for starting this thread, brother.<br class=""></div><div class=""> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt" class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">I am writing to you just present a possible thought process based on recent publicly available fact:<br class=""></div>[...]<br class=""><div class="">4. Chair of the board, without consent decision from the whole board,</div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">...any evidence to support this affirmation?<br class=""></div><div class=""> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt" class=""><div class=""> decided unilaterally to request AC stop working based on the resignation alone.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">...i think the BoD's Chair has said that the decision <br class=""></div><div class="">was based on an interpretation of a governing text.<br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Said interpretation is inconsistent with the text in question.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I am not accusing the chair of malicious intent here, but I am saying that his interpretation</div><div>does not match the words in the document for whatever reason(s).</div><div><br class=""></div><div><br class=""></div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div class=""> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt" class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">5. We see 3-2 vote in AC’s minutes.<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div>[...]<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">For the integrity of the process and to be fair to all parties, I would suggest the following:<br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1. AC continues finish the currant appeal that is in process and publish its report.<br class=""></div><div class="">2. Board appoints an investigation committee after above process is finalised and make a public report on the allegations. Since these are serious and public allegations, so should the results be of the investigation. We should take serious action prevent the said person in engaging in community work again. If nothing is found, we should also make it clear to the world that it was an unfound accusation and it was of malicious intent in nature.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">...i and others have already called the BoD to do <br class=""></div><div class="">something similar :-/</div><div class="">The BoD's Chair has promised to discuss with <br class=""></div><div class="">PDWG's AC members...iirc.<br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Then let us look forward to the outcome of that discussion, but I hope that the chair will</div><div>comply with the actual text of the document, rather than produce more creative interpretations</div><div>for us to react to.</div><div> <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class=""><div style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt" class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">3. If possible, AFRINIC should publish the recorded zoom meeting video file for the public to review.<br class=""></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">...this should be only accessible to the investigation <br class=""></div><div class="">committee, at least until it confirms that there is nothing <br class=""></div><div class="">to hide. <br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I think I agree with the sentiment I believe you are trying to convey, but I cannot agree</div><div>with the above words.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The video should be made available for the investigation (If one exists, and I agree one</div><div>should). It should not be made public unless misconduct is identified and even then, only</div><div>the portions of the video that are evidence of the misconduct should be made available.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>If a committee’s meeting videos are going to be made public, the members of that committee</div><div>should be aware of that intent prior to the meeting. Otherwise, it is unfair to the members</div><div>of the committee to abruptly make public what they were told was a private meeting going</div><div>in and it will inhibit frank and honest discussion in such meetings.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>