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

[rpd] Publication of Information (Draft-2) - AFPUB-2021-GEN-001-DRAFT02

Anthony Ubah ubah.tonyiyke at
Mon Nov 15 07:25:51 UTC 2021


This is a thoughtful proposal. You might want to revisit the statement in
the Summary of the problem.


> *At the same time, it is understandable that the justification of a
> request for resources can be confidential as it can provide insights into a
> business plan to competitors. However, it is also obvious that in the
> Internet business, time passes very quickly and the need for
> confidentiality vanishes very quickly. It is difficult to believe, for
> example, that you request resources for the next 5 years, and only in year
> 5, your business will be public.*

I find this section very confusing. Can you explain to me how in *"Internet
business, time passes very quickly and the need for confidentiality
vanishes very quickly"*?

While the use of Number resources may not necessarily be guarded like the
secrets of the coca cola formula, but not less guarded if it is key to a
business' private strategy. If resource usage is tied to the initial
justification as confidential, then it might be impossible to determine
otherwise later, using the algorithm of this proposal or any other text to
change that in the CPM.

Resource request justification is well within the gray areas , and we
don't want to cast a shadow on it in the name of, "openness, transparency,
and fairness".

On the proposal, comment inline.

13.0 Publication of Information

> *Following the principles of openness, transparency, and fairness and
> considering that we are dealing with community resources that aren’t
> property, after 2 years of every accepted resource request, the
> justification of that request must be published.*

Why is there a need to publish this justification?
I believe only resources in dispute should be published, and this must only
be invoked by a court order. Risks of implementing this include copycat
justification and witch hunting from competition.

> *The resource member will be warned 3 months before the publication with a
> draft of the summary to be published. In case there are reasons (such as
> patents or similar ones), that avoid the publication of those details and
> demonstrate the unique nature of the services offered which, if disclosed,
> could damage the resource member business, it will have up to 1 month, to
> provide an alternative text to be published or request an extension of 1
> year on that publication.*

Does giving 1 month to provide alternative text give room to provide a
different justification, or to revalidate existing justification? How does
the additional one year change the privacy status of the business blueprint?

> *AFRINIC will have 1 month to accept the justification and, in doubt,
> escalate to the Board that must resolve in a maximum of 1 month after
> hearing the resource holder.**This policy shall be implemented in such a
> way that all the resources allocated/assigned for over 2 years, will be
> chronologically warned, allowing the staff to process the possible
> responses of “non-disclosure” without requiring extra human resources.*

Please shed more light.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list