[rpd] RDP Discussion

[NP Petronella]

Dear Ben,

You are drawing more from my reply than it said.

This is a public policy forum. Responding to a point does not mean I am answering for Mandla, speaking for NRS, or clarifying anyone’s affiliation. Mandla can answer for himself. I challenged the assumption that a person’s employment automatically turns an individual contribution into an organisational position.

Open participation means participants may engage with arguments wherever they appear in the discussion. Unless someone expressly claims authorisation to represent an organisation, their contribution should be treated as their own.

Please do not convert ordinary participation into inferred affiliations or relationships. Let us return to the policy.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla

________________________________
From: Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2026 08:08:40
To: Petronella NP <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RDP Discussion


Nonhlanhla,

My mail was clearly and unequivocally addressed to Mandla asking him a valid question.

It was not a general point for discussion, so there was no need to answer for him. But thanks for stepping in to clarify affiliations.  We now fully understand.

Kind regards
Ben

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Jul 2026, at 07:51, NP Petronella <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com> wrote:



Hi Ben,

You certainly make a lot of assumptions about people.

No, I do not speak for Mandla or NRS. I responded to a general point on a public mailing list. Supporting another participant’s argument does not create an affiliation, agency relationship, or shared identity.

Mandla’s job title also does not mean every contribution he makes is an assigned organisational statement. Unless he expressly says he is authorised to represent NRS, his contribution is his own. You may ask Mandla about his capacity, but you should not invent one for either of us.

That is the basic distinction between participation and representation. Please address the argument instead of constructing relationships between the people raising it.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla



________________________________
From: Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2026 07:45:30
To: Petronella NP <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RDP Discussion

Nonhlanhla,

Can I assume you know Mandla and/or NRS well enough to speak on his or their behalf. ?

He has clearly stated that he is a policy insights contributor at NRS. So if he then contributes policy insights, you can see why it appears that he is doing is assigned job for his employer ?

Kind regards
Ben

Previous message from Mandla…

Good day,

Mandla,Policy insights contributor at NRS.

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


Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Jul 2026, at 07:36, NP Petronella <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com> wrote:


Dear Ben,

Mandla’s position is straightforward. AFRINIC’s PDP is open to anyone and imposes no qualification for participation. A contributor does not automatically represent their employer merely because an affiliation is known.

Unless Mandla expressly states that he is authorised to speak for NRS, his contribution is his own. Employment is context, not a power of attorney.

Assuming otherwise confuses participation with representation and suggests a misunderstanding of how an open PDP works. Please assess Mandla’s argument as Mandla’s argument.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/7b84f716/attachment-0001.html>