Search RPD Archives
[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up
dabu.sifiso at yandex.com
Tue Jun 5 16:04:45 UTC 2018
I would like to formally and strongly oppose the policy in its current form AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-03 found at:
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 at 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 at elandsys.com>:
>> 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?
More information about the RPD