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

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

Sami s.aitalioulahcen at
Mon Jul 17 10:29:32 UTC 2017

Dear Ashok,

Thank you for your legal assessment. Would you be kind enough to respond
inline like the authors did.

GPG Key ID: 0x36d57440

> On 12 July 2017 at 21:28, Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at
> <mailto:amelnaud at>> 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)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list