Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"

Anton Baskov ab at
Tue Jun 27 15:24:44 UTC 2017

Dear colleagues,
In general, I agree with the proposal – at this moment I see it might be
actual. But I would like to propose to
 - 13.3.1 Change selection procedure – it should be random for all
AFRINIC members despite category they have;
 - 13.3.3 Avoid raising review by community complaint as it might cause
a lot of negative side effects;
 - 13.3 Add additional measure to raise number of reviews requested by
member themselves: prohibit transferring resources by the member that
hadn't passed review for all resources of same type as transferring
resource including resource to be transferred.

Additional remark specified above allow transfer only resources that had
been used in past two years – this measure prevents holding unused
resources for a long time, since after a while they can be only returned
to AFRINIC instead to be transferred to another member.

Anton Baskov <ab at>
+7 (916) 716-89-46; C8CE F641 9F9F 5EBE 5067 F21D 6148 5CF5 A710 49CA
19/06/2017 04:34, Ashok Radhakissoon пишет:
> To the Attention of the  Co -Chairs-PDWG
> I refer to the proposed" Internet Number Resources Review" policy and
> specifically to my observations thereon from a legal perspective.*(
> attached here)*
> Indeed I made two assessments. The first was for the first version of
> the said proposal and  the second was for the amended  versions thereof.
> Whilst my first observation rested on the contractual  aspect of the RSA
> and the contractual obligation of members to comply thereto-*See clause
> 4 of the RSA. *My second assessment was made from the perspective of the
> implementation of the proposal.
> As these assessments were submitted by AFRINIC to the authors in good
> time before the face to face discussion thereon, I expected that they
> were to be considered as a fourth version of the proposal was presented.
> To all intents and purposes, it is my humble opinion that the legal
> issues were not addressed by the authors nor did you draw attention to
> them during the face to face meeting.
> I believed that since the assessments were part of the record for the
> purposes of discussions and consideration, I did not draw the attention
> of the working group to them.
> I am now doing so.
>  I reiterate that the proposal, as submitted and later amended, would
> expose AFRINIC to potential legal suits if the following issues which I
> have raised in my assessment are not addressed.
> 1- The testing of data/facts/ evidence submitted( by third parties) to
> staff  require the latter to verify  the
> veracity/admissibility/authenticity thereof.If AFRINIC was to act on
> these, and they later reveal themselves to be
> forged/untrue/inadmissible/, AFRINIC may potentially face civil suits at
> the behest of members from whom resources would have been recovered and
> which could have been prejudicial to them(members). I also referred to
> the problem of multi-jurisdictional sources of evidence/facts etc
> 2- The authors must pronounce themselves on whether members should have
> recourse to sworn affidavits or go through the services of a
> commissioner of oath or propose any other modus to enable the staff of
> AFRINIC to undertake the testing exercise *on the basis of reliable
> evidence,* before embarking upon a review process.
> 3-My remarks would apply for the two "classes" of review- complaints
> from community- AFRINIC's own decision-
> 4- I have also not seen the stand of the authors regarding the fact as
> to the "arbiration award" being unequivocal and my observation related
> to an incompatibility with the Code of Civil Procedure of Mauritius.
> 5- I also raised the issue of " hearing" the investigated party*( a
> requirement of the rules of natural justice)* and expressly stated that
> the proposal does not provide anything in this regard.
> 6-The question of choice of jurisdiction  wherein the arbitration  be
> held-Would it always be Mauritius ? This is the law that applies to the RSA.
> In the light of the above ,may I request the Co-Chairs to consider same
> and consequently decide, whether further discussions are required on
> this proposal.
> I thank you for you kind consideration.
> Ashok.B.Radhakissoon
> Afrinic-Legal Adviser.
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list