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

[Noah]

Hello,

Amending the RSA to enable the transfer policy has generated  a bunch of
discussions and concerns.

It is very important to see that the proposed changes through the updated
6d(v) and the new 6d(vi) address the concerns expressed. *The main/major
concern was make sure that we do not create any loopholes to be exploited
after.*

Other minor changes are harmless  and good to have.

Cheers
Noah

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike:
>
> "Your interest" is a very personal attack.
>
> As I mentioned in my previous  email, I view the RSA and policy as two
> independent documents which serve for entirely different purposes. While
> RSA allows AFRINIC to establish a legal relationship with its members so
> AFRINIC can be funded, policies are specifically designed to manage
> internet resources.
>
> So by that logic, I don't think there should be any text inside both
> documents to be complementary to each other.
>
> If you think that any of these texts that I pointed out has a legal reason
> to remain, feel free to point it out.
>
> I am not a lawyer, what I do is to point out the texts which I believe are
> unrelated to the legal relationship between AFRINIC and its member.
>
> Even if a certain policy text is missing, we shouldn't expect RSA to
> enforce a policy that doesn't exist yet. Rather, we should make a policy
> proposal to ratify the policy.
>
> But anyway, can we discuss specific cause here instead of arguing whether
> we should use RSA to manage resource?
>
> With regards.
>
> Lu
>
> On 3 October 2017 at 17:02, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lu
>>
>> I think you are misinterpreting the comment made.
>>
>> I think both Omo and Adewole were supporting the principle you expressed
>> (resource management is better addressed in policy than in a legal
>> agreement). Apologies to both if I am misrepresenting you.
>>
>> The concern being raised is that absent specific policy on those issues
>> we cannot remove those clauses from the RSA, lest we create a lacunae that
>> could cause problems.
>>
>> The suggestion (as I view it) as that we propose and finalise policy to
>> replace the items in the RSA and once the policy has been ratified, we
>> agree a mechanism to remove that issue from the RSA.
>>
>> I did not see any ad hominem attack and I don’t think any was intended.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On 3 Oct 2017, at 10:27, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 October 2017 at 15:53, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 3 Oct 2017, at 06:59, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Those ip addresses management clause inside RSA was written by lawyers,
>>> not the community. According to bottom up process, only policy can dictate
>>> how we use IP addresses.
>>>
>>>
>>>  It is AfriNIC that facilitates this bottom up process. It is also it
>>> responsibility to coordinate the management of INR.   Some might say this
>>> is its primary responsibility.
>>>
>>> Until a policy gets developed by the community, the RSA is the only
>>> mechanism available for fufilling this management mandate.   Your interest
>>> in removing these clauses from the RSA is probably better served by
>>> proposing policy that makes them redundant as Dewole suggests.
>>>
>>> -Omo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "My interest" is a weird misinterpretation and completely not true(why
>> must it get personal every time, omo? ) I barely point out the clause that
>> contains IP address management material(and I might have missed some).
>>
>> Those words are written by lawyers to manage IP addresses - this
>> shouldn't happen in the very first place, because  in the bottom up
>> process, only community-developed policies are able to manage the IP
>> address, which is the golden rule of bottom up process. Operators get to
>> decide how they want to use and manager the very resource they are using
>> instead of lawyers.
>>
>> By your logic, if there is a missing item in the policy, we should simply
>> ask lawyers to add it to the RSA until community makes a redundant policy -
>> but this is not how PDP works. PDP is not served as a way to replicate what
>> lawyers wrote. Rather, if you think there is a missing item in the policy,
>> you will have to make a policy proposal, and see if community agrees.
>>
>> RSA should in no way serve as a complementary to the policy, rather, they
>> are two independent documents that serve for entirely different purposes.
>> While RSA allows AFRINIC to establish a legal relationship with its members
>> so AFRINIC can be funded, policies are specifically designed to manage
>> internet resources.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Kind regards.
>> Lu
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Kind regards.
> Lu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>


-- 
*./noah*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20171030/9cf103d7/attachment.html>