[rpd] balancing operators vs other participants in the PDP - was Re: Last Call - RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT03.

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

Hi Daniel,

 

If you’re working for an employer that allows you to respect your personal views in a community that it is about *individuals* (yes, the PDP community is about individuals not members and even less puppets), then I’m for being loyal. And that will mean that you could clearly say:

 

“as an employee of this operator I see from a business perspective, this and that point, however, in my personal capacity my view is this one …”.

 

Now, if you work, because you’ve no other choice (read my previous response to Noah) for a “bad actor”, loyalty should not be a referent.

 

By the way, the best situation could be that you and your boss are in the PDP and the boss say what he things in their own side and you on your own, but we know that it usually is not the case, and your boss will “hide” after you.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 8/6/21 12:30, "Daniel Yakmut" <yakmutd at googlemail.com> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi,

 

This is a classical conflict of interest, however I will not encourage your suggestion.

 

In my clime the action is trachery and you cannot have an opinion outside what you have stated as directed by your employer. Loyalty is mportant.

 

Simply

Daniel

 

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021, 11:05 AM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

(subject changed)

 

Hi Paschal,

 

Let me try to explain what I’m meaning here.

 

Let’s asume I’m working for an operator. I’m anonymous at gmail.com.

 

My employeer ask me to post an opinion following their internal policy/views/thoughs, and my email is jordi at operator.com. I can even say that this is the corporate view, etc.

 

I “personally” disagree with that, but I need to do so to not be fired.

 

I will post as jordi at operator.com what I’m instructed to.

 

I will also post my *real personal opinion* as anymous at gmail.com. I can even say here “I work for an operator but I can’t disclose other details, as my opinions contradict my employeer ones and I could be fired if I contradict them”.

 

Nobody needs to know that anonynous at gmail.com and jordi at operator.com are the same person, but at least, in the list the chairs can see that there is some bussiness perspective in some of the responses and that even operators think in a different way when they are free to speak.

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 8/6/21 11:31, "Paschal Ochang" <pascosoft at gmail.com> escribió:

 



On Tuesday, June 8, 2021, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

Hi Mike,

 

Fully agree on this:

 

Also agreed. However there have been objections from people regarding alleged negative impacts on network operations. In this case I think it is reasonable that the objector either:

 

·         identifies the *actual* network they operate; or

·         acknowledges that their objection is based on a hypothetical network and not actually based in reality (academics have great ideas too); or

·         admits that they are a paid shill for someone else. 

 

 

It will be awesome to justify objections and simplify the work of the authors in improving the policy or responding to the objections, and for the chairs to evaluate all the points.

 

I will also say that if somene is participanting with an anonymous email, because it has a conflict of interest with his employeer, to state so (without giving employee deatails). That will help to balance if some opinions look contradictory, to understand why.

Well I think that there is a moral or ethical justification to this but one may argue that it is still not enshrined in the current process or community definitions so a full disclosure cannot be enforced as a criteria for participation. So I think there is no need to go down that road and burn unnecessary calories.

 

Saludos,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 8/6/21 10:41, "Mike Silber" <silber.mike at gmail.com> escribió:

 

Hi Jordi

 

On 8 Jun 2021, at 09:44, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

 

 

 

While I understand your point, I think that we need to agree that sometimes, non-operators, also provide points of view that help to improve policies. 

 

I do agree. However we need to accept that those contributions are largely on legal / policy issues.

 

I am a legal / policy person and the views expressed on this policy regarding the RIR system and the legal and policy issues are without foundation. As I am a legal / policy person I don’t presume to comment on network operations.

 

Also, there may be policies where the discussion will not be well balanced if only operators participate, because are not so closely related to operation, and instead to how to distribute resources that belong to the overall community.

 

Also agreed. However there have been objections from people regarding alleged negative impacts on network operations. In this case I think it is reasonable that the objector either:

 

·         identifies the *actual* network they operate; or

·         acknowledges that their objection is based on a hypothetical network and not actually based in reality (academics have great ideas too); or

·         admits that they are a paid shill for someone else. 

 

Regards

 

Mike


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


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.



-- 
Kind regards, 

Paschal.


**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

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



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210608/2c5bd309/attachment-0001.html>