<div dir="ltr">Hi Andrew,<div>Please look at comments inline.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-11-03 5:20 GMT+00:00 Andrew Alston <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US">
<div class="gmail-m_261822511252940084WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri">Abel,<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri">The current 3.2.1 does not limit it to individuals, it says it is open to *<b>everyone</b>* including individuals. However, it does not say that ENTITIES are prohibited from participation
in that capacity. </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> Participation in the PDP and the WG is not fee-based or organizationally defined, but based upon self-identification and active participation by individuals. Views expressed are personal view and do not represent contributor ORG view. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_261822511252940084WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri">Indeed, there is precedent for this – Go back to any video of any PDP meeting and individuals have come to the microphone stating “I am so and so and I am here in my personal capacity”,
or “I am so and so and I represent X”</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div>What i see is as follow :</div><div><br></div><div>For RIR related bodies (board, AC, staff….), " I am X and speaking in my personal capacity” . They avoid misinterpretation as they wear also other hats.</div><div><br></div><div>For Others : " I am Y, ORG A”, “ I am Z, I work for ORG B”. They use ORG for identification. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_261822511252940084WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri">The moment you say everyone without limitation as is stated below, this I would argue is certainly inclusive of legal entities (human or otherwise), that wish to participate in that capacity.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If we want this interpretation, we shall make it clear and adopt the appropriate measures to implement it. The WG would need to check authentication / authorization to represent ORG they claim to represent. This would also imply appropriate management of *Conflict of Interest* and *IPR* on the contributions</div><div><br></div><div>Do we need ORGs views in the PDP beyond the individual active participation ??? </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_261822511252940084WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri">Andrew</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div>Merci.</div><div><br></div><div>--Abel. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="white" lang="EN-US"><div class="gmail-m_261822511252940084WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<div style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt solid rgb(181,196,223);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-family:calibri;color:black">From: </span>
</b><span style="font-family:calibri;color:black">abel ELITCHA <<a href="mailto:kmw.elitcha@gmail.com" target="_blank">kmw.elitcha@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, 2 November 2016 at 23:33<br>
<b>To: </b>Andrew Alston <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.<wbr>com</a>><br>
<b>Cc: </b>General Discussions of AFRINIC <<a href="mailto:community-discuss@afrinic.net" target="_blank">community-discuss@afrinic.net</a><wbr>>, Arnaud AMELINA <<a href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com" target="_blank">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>><span class="gmail-"><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [Community-Discuss] IPv4 depletion in AFRINIC will speed up IPv6 adoption - myth or fact?<u></u><u></u></span></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p>Hello Andrew,<u></u><u></u></p><div><div class="gmail-h5">
<p>Comments inline.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Le 1 nov. 2016 19:34, "Andrew Alston" <<a href="mailto:Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.com" target="_blank">Andrew.Alston@liquidtelecom.<wbr>com</a>> a écrit :<br>
><br>
> Arnaud,<br>
><br>
><br>
> You are right – proxies aren’t allowed at PDP – except in this case, they are not proxies. I am the direct administrative contact for those organisations and hence I speak for each of them, one organisation at a time.<br>
><u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Participation in PDP discussions is by individual and not by organization. Hence the direct administrative contact role you have for organizations would be irrelevant in the policy discussions. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p> Section 3.2.1 of the PDP says:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>===================<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>Openness<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>All policies are developed in an open forum in which anyone may participate. There are no qualifications for participation.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>===================<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>*Co-chairs should correct me if I'm wrong*. <u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p>Merci.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p>--Abel<u></u><u></u></p>
<p style="margin-bottom:12pt">><br>
> Andrew<br>
><br>
> <br>
><u></u><u></u></p>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(7,55,99)">Best regards,<br></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(7,55,99)"><br></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="color:rgb(7,55,99)">--Komi A. Elitcha</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family:"comic sans ms",sans-serif"><br></span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>