[Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -
gregoire.ehoumi at yahoo.fr
Fri Dec 21 03:17:42 UTC 2018
The order is clear simple: Member sign RSA which introduce Policies which recognise BCPs...
The RSA stipulates that it's subject at all times to policies, which means that policies supersede the RSA.
RSA set defaut rules which may be override by policies, but anything not explicit in policies follow RSA.
Amending the RSA was not needed as argued last time, but the precedence has been set and we thereafter have this confusion.
So back to the original discussion, where is the conflict between the RSA and the IP allocation policies ?
------ Original message------From: Nishal GoburdhanDate: Thu, Dec 20, 2018 11:23 AMTo: General Discussions of AFRINIC;Cc: Subject:Re: [Community-Discuss] Issue with non-AFRINIC Fellowship to Meeting -
On 20 Dec 2018, at 17:14, Gregoire Ehoumi via Community-Discuss wrote:
> You suddenly discovered a bug in the system? Congrats
> But I see no bug . The normal course of proceedings follow the RSA
> then the policies and the BCP's.
when the policy that allowed afrinic space to be resold to other afrinic
members  went to RPD WGLC, i asked a similar question  on the RPD
list, since, the proposed policy would conflict with the then existing
RSA (the précis of which went: the RSA at the time said: “return
unused space”, but, the incoming policy said: “nah, don’t
bother; just turn it in for a profit instead, later”) ..
the answer that staff presented was actually the opposite of what you
wrote above. see . so, if a policy is passed through the PDP
process, that changes the terms of the RSA, then the RSA will need to be
Community-Discuss mailing list
Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss