Yes, clearly quoting is not plagiarism. As said, using text from others, without citing it, it is an IP violation in many countries, but this is the same with many aspects of the CoC, in many countries, those are criminal/illegal actions. The CoC is just remembering that and reinforcing it just in case it happens in this scope, so there is no doubt or anyone that say "in my country this is not illegal".
Agree with your final comments. I don't know all the details of the Cloud Innovation case and I *personally* disagree that using the resources outside the region and/or leasing is acceptable, at least not with the current rules (we can change that via the PDP if the community agree). However, on top of that, it is clear to me that *following* existing rules (PDP, CPM, bylaws, RSA, etc.) is not only in the best interest of the community (and this includes Board and staff) and that includes proposing changes when something seems to be wrong, that's why we have the PDP and community consultancy on topics such as the CoC, AC composition, etc. Nobody can be "prosecuted" for trying to improve things, or defend his/her bussiness or customers, even if they look "negative" to some. It is part of the rights of the community and, in general, freedom of speech and freedom of bussiness. And this can't be pre-judged as if it is on the "best interest" or not, because the community is diverse. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet El 17/7/21 4:19, "Owen DeLong" <[email protected]> escribió: > On Jul 16, 2021, at 08:19 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Community-Discuss <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I've sent already a couple of emails to comms about my concerns on the CoC. I can only find right now the last one, but I've the feeling that my previous inputs haven't been considered. > > I think it will be nice, when some inputs are not considered, to explain why, so to avoid misunderstandings, etc. Also, not getting inputs, doesn't help those that contribute to keep contributing (if you don't get feedback, if your inputs aren't considered, why you want to keep contributing?). > > So, some of my repeated inputs: > > 1) The use of emails captured from mailing lists, whois, etc., to send spam, such as voting suggestions, should be explicitly cited as forbidden by the CoC. I agree with this. > 2) Distribution of malware in any of the mailing lists. While I am not a fan of item 13 (which I will outline later), so long as it persists, I think it is safe to say that everyone will generally agree that sending malware to the mailing lists is not acting in the best interests of the community. > 3) Posting private emails without the express consent of the sender. I agree with this. > 4) Posting commercial/advertising content (unless done in the scope of a sponsorship, for example in-person events). And this. > 5) Plagiarism. This would need to be addressed more specifically. Quotation of content vs. plagiarism is a very fine line and very subjective. Indeed, in copyright law in the US, courts still struggle with it since 1934. Absent clear guidance on where this line is drawn in this context, I think such a rule could be quite open to abuse. I don’t see any problem with the PDWG co-chairs enforcing the CoC WRT the RPD list as they are charged with managing the PDP and given broad latitude in that mandate. My problem with item 13 is not the spirit or intent as it is written, but in the ambiguity that exists about what is “in the best interests of the AFRINIC community” and how this statement could be abused in an effort to subjugate unpopular ideas or silence the voice of a minority opinion in the community. Indeed, it seems quite clear to me in AFRINIC’s recent filings with the Supreme court that they intended to claim that my participation in the case on behalf of Cloud Innovation was contrary to the best interests of the community. While I will agree that my participation was not necessarily in the best interests of AFRINIC staff, I will absolutely insist that the best interests of the community were foremost in my mind as I took on this issue. The need to hold AFRINIC board and staff accountable to the rules as written is absolutely in the best interests of the community, no matter how inconvenient that fact may be for those seeking to act otherwise, even if they are executives or board members of the organization. As such, while I support the idea behind clause 13 and have at all times complied with the spirit thereof (it is also present in the existing CoC). I think it is important that this rule come with safeguards to prevent it from becoming a tool of oppression. Owen ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it. _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
