[rpd] Travel funding for AfriNIC meetings

[Noah]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 6:59 PM Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> wrote:


> Let me start off by indicating again that I do not believe this is an

> appropriate topic for the rpd list - unless and until someone proposes a

> policy regarding funding (which IMO will be out of bounds of the PDP). This

> is a community or members list issue.

>


Hi Mike,

This is not a member-list issue actually. Perhaps the community-list, but
it is surely PDP related and should be discussed on this very rpd-list and
in fact during the Public Policy Meetings. Also not everything discussed on
this rpd list or at during the PPM leads to policy actions.

In the case of the issue currently under discussion, the outcome might not
be a proposal on funding, but rather changes in the PDP to guarantee its
integrity and increase its resistance to *potential* *capture*  and *abuses*,
in addition to *ethical* and conservative measures AfriNIC as an
organisation must undertake.



> If I can summarise:

>

> - many people get funding to attend meetings, some from their employers,

> some from AfriNIC (excluding employees) and some from various funding

> institutions;

> - when travel costs are paid by an employer, we accept that the attendee

> will consider the impact on the employer before engaging in discussions

> (even if the views are their own). AfriNIC funded attendees (other than

> employees) are expected to follow their own views - whether we agree with

> them or not. We are unsure whether attendees sponsored by an opaque funding

> institution may have been indoctrinated to follow a particular view.

>


It is not only the AfriNIC funded attendees (fellows) that are expected to
follow their own views.

Everyone is expected to follow their own views according to the intentions
of the PDP and this is irrespective of funding source (i.e be principled
and work only in the interest of AfriNIC).

You have also noted impact on employer, but there’s also employer impact on
what should be an individualized PDP participation across various working
groups.




> The conclusion drawn by some is that attendees sponsored by an opaque

> funding institution have been indoctrinated and this somehow corrupts the

> policy development process.

>


Interesting you refer to attendees sponsored by opaque organizations. In
fact opaque organizations should not exist within the context of AfriNIC
let alone to be involved in sponsoring anything related to AfriNIC
activities.




> Outside of that there has been mudslinging against various institutions

> and various people, indicating yet again that our community is divided.

>


Please can you kindly indicate the indicated division in our community?



>

> In my view, the issue is not funding, or stacking the room or

> indoctrination or training - it is about TRUST. In a community where few

> trust each other, then the only option to improve trust is transparency.

>


What if it’s not about trust but rather *capture*, *control* and *abuse* of
AfriNIC Internet Number Resources?



>

> Transparency will allow us to leap to conclusions based on affiliation -

> without considering the argue. However, that seems to be the preferred mode

> of operation in this community, so who am I to judge.

>

> In my view transparency can be achieved in two ways: (i) the publication

> of a statement of interest, setting out organisational affiliations, such

> as employer or clients of a consultant (and confirming that the person is a

> real human and not a sock puppet) **before** participating in the rpd

> list; and (ii) when at a meeting, participants must introduce themselves

> and indicate their organisational affiliation **as well as anyone funding

> their travel** if not their organisation. For example - my name is John,

> I work at XYZ ISP and I am an AfriNIC funded fellow.

>

> I think those two simple approaches are basic etiquette and can be

> included in the Code of Conduct. I also think AfriNIC can create a

> “statement of interest” database with minimal effort (and no personal

> identifying information).

>

> If this is followed, aside for possible reporting of violations of the

> Code of Conduct, we can remove this inane and pointless discussion from the

> rpd list.

>


Everything was transparent up until the opaque organizations arrived with
their strings attached funding from what we have seen.

Noah



> Mike

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200308/445a84c4/attachment.html>