[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       afrinic-rpd
Subject:    Re: [rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up
From:       Komi Elitcha <kmw.elitcha () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-06-07 23:10:50
Message-ID: c6e0dd10-d073-5b3e-72b9-1bd8166efabe () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

PDP-BIS initiators have heard  the concerns on anonymity for policy 
proposals... They  also have heard those who think the option is 
desirable as pdp is more about solving INRs allocation and utilization 
issues through ideas and opinions and not people.

Also a proposal adopted by the working group  becomes a community 
document and the working group decides and manage the lifecycle of the 
proposal...Thus the move from "author" to "initiator"
We encourage more discussions  on this topic and on other aspects of the 
proposal as expressed in Dakar.

Thanks.


Le 06/06/2018 à 08:11, Frank Habicht a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I would also like to oppose any move to allow anonymous policy
> proposals. We need to have a possibility to address the author. And we
> need to know who the author is.
> 
> Regards,
> Frank
> 
> On 6/5/2018 7:04 PM, Dabu Sifiso wrote:
> > Hi Arnaud,
> > 
> > I would like to formally and strongly oppose the policy in its current form \
> > AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-03 found at: \
> > https://afrinic.net/en/community/policy-development/policy-proposals/2387-afrinic-policy-development-process-bis
> >  
> > And any future versions that retain the anonymous option as a valid form of \
> > submission for a policy. 
> > I would like to suggest adding that any potential conflict of interest MUST be \
> > disclosed by the authors upon submitting a policy. Not that the community can do \
> > much about a conflict of interest declared or not from an author, but it would be \
> > good practice to put it as a must and offer a much needed transparency. 
> > Transparency is what is often lacking.
> > 
> > 
> > 12.04.2018, 15:21, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi  Dear Board member Mooneamy,
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your valuable comments. See below between lines
> > > 
> > > 2018-04-10 20:06 GMT+00:00 S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic@elandsys.com>:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I read AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-02.  In Section 3.5:
> > > > 
> > > > "One or all initiators of a policy proposal have the option to remain \
> > > > anonymous." 
> > > > Could the anonymity cause any conflict of interest issues?
> > > Of which sort?
> > Does this still need to be answered?
> > 
> > > Who knows those  people who are  behind policy proposals and not listed as \
> > > co-authors ?
> > Why make it easier. If people want to use sock puppets and remain anonymous, at \
> > least someone will be attached to the policy ghost writer or not. It is the case \
> > today, it may remain like that tomorrow as well. I see no advantage in creating \
> > the anonymous part, other than to try to play games with the system. Also isn't \
> > it for the author(s) to address any issues or concerns raised in regards to a \
> > policy? 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD@afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD@afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

-- 
--
KE


_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD@afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]