> On Dec 12, 2018, at 08:33 , Gregoire Ehoumi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> The point makes perfect sense. Any organisation holding IP's from AFRINC is
> only doing so in trust and not their property, It can be recalled back at
> any time if/when AFRINIC believes that they are not being used for the
> reasons and purposes for which they were allocated. Especially in this arena
> where technology and organisations can change. The PDP and this Review
> policy is just a mean in which AFRINIC can enforce its RSA, specifically
> Section 4 -C - (iii)
Actually, it isn’t. AfriNIC can enforce the RSA without this review policy.
This review policy doesn’t enable AfriNIC to do anything AfriNIC can’t already
do.
What it does do is (potentially) force AfriNIC to take on additional tasks to
conduct investigations into reported violations of the RSA to determine whether
or not the proffered accusation constitutes credible evidence or not. It places
no limits on the number of such investigations which can be forced by
disgruntled members of the community. It places no hard limits on the amount of
time and effort this may require on the part of resource members defending
against such allegations, even if they are found to be baseless except that if
a member is put through a “full review” (which is not well defined in the
policy), that member cannot be subjected to such process again for some period
of time.
> This policy only gives guidelines as to how this can be implemented in a fair
> and transparent process. How can you or any other African be against this.
> If a member already goes through an evaluation process when acquiring
> resources why should the member be opposed to a periodic review.
It’s neither fair nor transparent. It’s expensive and burdensome for large
organizations while remaining fairly light-weight for small organizations. It’s
a wide open vector for those who wish to launch a form of denial of service
attack against some member organizations and/or AfriNIC itself.
I do not believe anyone has expressed opposition to legitimate periodic review.
This proposal isn’t that. This proposal wants to pretend that it is that, but
in fact, it is something very different. A carefully engineered attack on
larger organizations by smaller ones.
> The conflict comes because a particular member is fighting deadly such a
> proposal and people speaking on their personal capacity and opposing the
> proposal on the PDP list and at meetings, have work relationship with that
> member. They are conflicted and so their opinions must be taken into context.
You, like the other person who accused me directly of a conflict of interest
are mistaken sir. You are mistaken in your definition of conflict of interest
and you are mistaken in your belief about how I arrived at my position on this
proposal.
First, I opposed this proposal well before I began any working relationship
with Larus.
Second, if I felt this were good policy, even if I thought it would be bad for
Larus, I’d be supporting it. In this case, it’s not.
Third, to the best of my knowledge, there are several people who have voiced
opposition who have no relationship whatsoever with Larus. I can think of at
least two other resource members who fit this description and have expressed
similar opposition without doing any research, just off the top of my head.
In order for a person to have a conflict of interest, several things must be
present:
1. They must have a greater level of influence in the policy
outcome than any general member of the polity.
(e.g. co-chair, board member, etc.)
2. They or their organization must unduly benefit from one
particular possible outcome more so than any
general other party is likely to.
(e.g. a collection of small organizations who believe they are
more likely to be able to benefit from reclaimed
IP space being available to them for a longer period in the
future if the policy passes)
In the case of the PDP, having an interest in the outcome of the policy process
as a member of the community does not constitute a conflict of interest. In
theory, all resource members have some level of interest in the outcome of
every PDP. Since all resource members are able to participate on equal footing
in the PDP, this interest is not a conflict of interest against their
obligations to the community because they do not meet the first test above.
Their influence over the PDP is no greater than any other resource member or
any other interested person.
Further, if your statements claiming that this proposal is a fair and equitable
way to conduct reviews were true (it isn’t), then, the second test for conflict
would also fail as the proposed policy would then not have an undue benefit or
impact on said resource holders beyond what it would have on any other resource
holders in the community.
So… Yes, the argument about conflicts of interest is non-sensical.
Owen
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
