Search RPD Archives
[rpd] balancing operators vs other participants in the PDP - was Re: Last Call - RPKI ROAs...
abscoco at gmail.com
Mon Jun 14 19:10:42 UTC 2021
Hope you are doing well!
...the topic looks as it's about the right to
to the PDWG :-/
Le ven. 11 juin 2021 10:34 AM, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> a écrit :
> Thanks for the timely reminder Sylvain
Thanks for joining the discussion, Mike.
...at your service brother :-)
Apologies for the late response :-/
> I think we may need to expand on the concept of “transparency”.
If you want to suggest something to
start with, i'll be interested to look at it.
...i see the following on Cambridge Dict :
transparency noun (OPEN)
[ U ] <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/help/codes.html>
the quality <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/quality> of
being done in an open
<https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/open> way without
We want <https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/want> more
transparency in government
> The challenge many of us have is that the discussion is transparent, but
> the background and motivation of many participants is not transparent.
...i'm sure this will not change, later or soon, brother.
Yes, there are real concerns about personal
motivations of participants, that is why
we needed good PDWG's Chairs and why
participants should first adhere to the PDP.
...but, there is a say  in french:
"A beau mentir qui vient de loin"
...trying to translate as:
"A person who comes from afar can easily lie"
...or may, more meaningfully:
"It is easy to lie about things which appened afar"
> Any thoughts if such transparency is desirable (or required)?
...maybe desirable, but seems unachievable, imho :-/
If someone have interesting ideas, we can try :-)
Any suggestions how we increase the transparency of participants (if
...yes! someone could have good ideas about.
> On 10 Jun 2021, at 13:17, Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear PDWG,
> Hoping that this email finds you in good health!
> ...please see my comments below.
> Le mar. 8 juin 2021 11:58 AM, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> a écrit :
>> Hi Jordi
> Hi Noah,
> Thanks for your email, brother.
>> What I am saying is that we out to be responsible but that does not mean
>> we must be anonymous.
> ...i think the discussion about anonymity 
> is a foundamental one for this PDWG.
> : Anonymity & Profiling Internet Community Members?
> We should address it fairly...as it's not an easy matter.
> What we should consider is always our core principles  :
> 3.2 Policy Development Principles
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD