Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Last Call for "AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT-04 - Internet Number Resources Review by AFRINIC"
akirizal at gmail.com
Fri Jul 14 14:37:23 UTC 2017
With this input Arnaud, I am inclined to support this policy...
Personal opinion here as well is that for as long as we are "two"
communities in "one", we àre going to keep taking 5steps forward and
8backward. Everyone is pulling the rope toward themselves, this to me is
one hell of a selfish community trend that should be dropped effective
immediately, else we hold on to it at our own peril.
On 12 Jul 2017 9:29 pm, "Arnaud AMELINA" <amelnaud at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Ashok,
> Thank you very much for your responses.
> 1. We are still in agreement that the review can be done by AFRINIC
> through a policy proposal as you stated all time.
> 2. According to your own legal assessment, there seems to be some risks
> associated to the review as mandated by this version of the policy proposal.
> 3. You agree that these risks can be managed
> And your response states:
> - There is no problem with 13.3.2 (Selected scenario)
> - There is no problem with 13.3.3.a (reported scenario: members asked to
> be reviewed)
> You also said nothing about about 13.3.1(Random scenario) and we therefore
> assume you are fine with that too.
> Your concern lies with 13.3.3.b ( Reported Scenario): community complaint
> made against a member that warrants investigation.
> A. Your main concern is about the reliability, admissibility and
> authenticity of the evidences to be provided by the third party to AFRINIC
> while reporting a ressource and you said:
> “ I shall never advise AFRINIC to embark upon an exercise where it will
> have to shoulder an obligation to test the reliability, admissibility and
> authenticity of such facts/data/information submitted by a third party.”
> Yes, it is the responsibility of the source of complaint to provide enough
> information to convince Afrinic to engage in the evaluation of the
> evidence/facts and a subsequent investigation if required. As such there
> is no need for a legal document. If supporting legal documents are
> required by Afrinic or provided by the source, this must be done through
> the appropriate mechanism which the legal counsel shall indicate to AFRINIC.
> The current version of the 13.3.3.b is PDPWG consensual version introduced
> since version 3.0. Authors would not object to reverting to the original
> version of the text which says:
> c) Reported:
> The members have requested the audit themselves or there has been a
> community complaint made against them that requires investigation.
> B. Your other concern is about the appeal process, and you said :
> “Whether you segregate the appeals as against (i) the result of the review
> or (ii) actions taken by AFRINIC based on the result of the review, in both
> cases AFRINIC is a party thereto. It cannot, consequently, put up a
> mechanism to have its own action reviewed. It simply does not make sense.
> This is why since the beginning, we made a reference to the "Mauritius
> Code of Civil Procedure" where the process for arbitration is already
> provided for."
> The focus in this policy proposal is on appeal process for the result of a
> review. The appeal for action taken based on result of review clearly fall
> under the Mauritius code of civil procedure as the RSA is governed by the
> Mauritius laws and the RSA has no other arbitration mechanism.
> The RSA has all the provisions for indemnification, liabilities, etc and
> the community trust the organization supported by its legal counsel to do
> the right things and stand to defend it everywhere.
> As this proposal is describing how AFRINIC shall conduct the review
> mandated by the RSA and policies, it is proposed (by AFRINIC community)
> that in case of disagreement on the result of review done by AFRINIC Ltd
> (which are mostly based on compliance to policies), a reviewed member is
> given a chance (not mandatory) to challenge the review results before an
> appeal panel of knowledgeable volunteers from the community. The Panel
> conclusion on the result of the review is final, but does not prevent the
> appeal against action taken by AFRINIC.
> Hope this Helps
> —Arnauld (on behalf of the authors)
> Le 10 juil. 2017 11:08, "Ashok Radhakissoon" <ashok at afrinic.net> a écrit :
>> Dear All,
>> Find for your consideration my final assessment of the proposed policy
>> under reference.
>> Legal Adviser
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD