[Community-Discuss] Call for Comments on a Revision to the RSA

[Adewole Ajao]

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Alan Barrett <alan.barrett at afrinic.net>
wrote:

>
> > On 2 Oct 2017, at 15:29, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
> > Just a quick comment on the wording. The notes say:
> >
> >> - The new 6(d)(vii) says that a transfer is a kind of allocation or
> assignment. Because of this, other parts of the RSA that refer to
> allocations or assignments will automatically cover transfers as well.
> >
> > That seems fine. However section 1(c)(i) says:
> >
> >> - “Services” may include, without limitation, an allocation/assignment
> or transfer of number resources.
> >
> > Depending on how someone wants to read it, that might be interpreted in
> a way that sets a precedent that says that transfers are not included in
> "allocation/assignment" by default and need to be mentioned explicitly.
> >
> > I know, I'm picking nits here, but for consistency and to avoid
> misinterpretations I think it would be better to either not mention "or
> transfers" here, or to explicitly include them in other places as well.
>
> Thanks.  I think we may be able to move the idea that a transfer is a kind
> of allocation or assignment to the definitions in 1(c), instead of a
> separate clause in 6(d)(viii).
>

It appears (today) under the context of application and registration that
transfers may be treated the same as allocations and assignments.

However, if for some unforeseen reason, it is decided in future (under some
unforeseen context) that a transfer is to be treated differently from
allocations and assignments, the documentation may become inconsistent. I
would favour an explicit mention of transfers everywhere *for now* (given
that we do not yet know transfers as well as we know allocations and
assignments).

Number/Numbering inconsistency persists in 6d (iii):
*6d (iii) that it is bestowed with an exclusive right of use of those
numbering resources within the ambit of the “need” which it has justified
in its application and for no other purpose during the currency of the
present agreement;*

Consider prefixing "transfer of number resources..." in 6d (v) with the
word "unauthorized" or something similar. I don't think we can say
something is *strictly* prohibited and in the same breath say it can be
done under certain conditions.
*(v) that the transfer of number resources is strictly prohibited, except
in the event of the Applicant becoming the subject of merger and/or
acquisition proceedings, or where such transfer is effected in compliance
with adopted policies;*

Because a case may involve doing both (1) and (2) in 6d (viii), I believe
(1) should read (just for the sake of reducing legal maneuvering space for
an offender):
(1) remedy the breach, following directions from AFRINIC, *and/or. *

*6d (viii) that in the event that it commits a breach in the use of number
resources*
*allocated or assigned to it, it shall:*
*(1) remedy the breach, following directions from AFRINIC, or*
*(2) return the affected number resources to AFRINIC.*

Dewole.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20171002/7798abe9/attachment.html>