Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Way forward as we approach AFRINIC-34 Public Policy Meeting.

Owen DeLong owen at
Sun Sep 19 17:24:52 UTC 2021

> On Sep 19, 2021, at 06:35 , Alève Mine <info at> wrote:


> Dear PDWG, dear AFRINIC


> In response to your message, the below is part of an effort to face today’s challenges, here as they reflect on AFRINIC, while said challenges cover a lot more ground. Disclosing: I am an individual at the origin of the OneGoal Initiative for Governance <> which is based on insights gained from studying the Margin Problem <>. It is while working on that that I landed in this thread. So, with regard to: Policy Development Process, PDWG Chairs (eligibility, selection & roles), and Conflict Resolution:


> For all 3 questions: The introduction of mandatory disclosures for all participants in governance conversations in a way to fully grasp what a person wants to achieve and what they can or cannot do or say: much more extensive than what I’ve written above about myself. Live usability of this information in a way that is directly targeted at a person - with compassion - in conversations. If a person says they don’t agree with x because of y then we want anyone to be able to say x interferes with the interests of z on which that person depends. Indeed, if we pretend that these dependencies don’t impact the outcome, not only will the outcome be shaped by these dependencies in avoidable ways, but all participants will waste time, if not their life, discussing decoy arguments that are tools for promoting our underlying drives that are irrelevant to our actual problem.

Given the previous tendency of certain members of this group to use any small or limited disclosure as a basis to launch ad hominem attacks against the disclosing individual(s), the trust model required here is unrealistic.

> Dependencies listed will themselves have dependencies: an affiliation may have some of the same shareholders or founders as another organisation, and the expressed missions never quite fully or clearly disclose organisations’ actions and intentions. A person may have allegiances, liabilities or own goals that are not written anywhere accessible. That a person or organisation has truly good intentions isn’t enough for them to act accordingly: they may have a liability, another entity may be pressuring them, holding them hostage with some type of argument, or just exercising authority of some kind over them, be it social or cultural. Therefore trust in a person’s intrinsic goodness isn’t enough. The person may also just believe that a powerful entity will give them favors protecting their future if they do one thing as opposed to another, although that presumably powerful party never promised any such thing, nor accurately figured out what is best for itself, for that sake. And a person may be an investor or executive in a company but there as a speculator or with an otherwise contrarian allegiance.

> This is by no means simple nor completely double-checkable, but we want to lay the foundations right in order to be able to build anything on top.

This is not a formal UN organization of nations. It is a relatively informal collection of mostly technical people trying to achieve rational policies for the administration of unique integers among competing interests. There is no issue of sustainability along the lines of the SDGs discussed in the margin problem or in the one-goal initiative.

> For eligibility, selection, roles: the allowable dependency structure of AFRINIC along the criteria of Keyness, Territory, Impact, Strategic motility and agility, and Management decision power listed in, albeit in the framework of startups, <> can be defined, and members screened accordingly. That said, the article doesn’t take into consideration all possible types of dependencies, so more thought needs to go into that. This also requires a constant awareness of updates in dependency structures of members.

You have perhaps mistaken IP for IP here. The article you reference refers to Intellectual Property. The IP generally discussed in this forum is not Intellectual Property, but rather Internet Protocol… Specifically the administration of Internet Protocol Addresses. The unique registration of integers among competing demands.

> Unfortunately, as long as we, around the world, don’t identify our problem accurately, our own risks will rise and issues such as those discussed here will be the subject of an arms race (I’m sure our ingenuity will be squandered to come up with a way to use the above against ourselves, too), because the underlying exploitative drive, or belief that exploitation is to the advantage of the exploiter, that has many faces, including but not limited to arbitrage and any grabbing of power, also active internally in other regions and areas, is ill-informed. Therefore, information and meanwhile continued defense are needed.

Well, there has certainly been plenty of this going on in this group. However, ironically, much more is perceived than is actual, which has driven a lot of what has become actual.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list