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

[rpd] Implementation of transfer policy AFPUB-2016-V4-003

Omo Oaiya Omo.Oaiya at
Fri Aug 25 08:07:51 UTC 2017

> On 25 Aug 2017, at 08:47, Christian Ahiauzu <christian.ahiauzu at> wrote:
> Bottom line, let me give an instance. Let's say company A signed the RSA in 2013 when policies A B and C were invoke and reflected on the RSA. As at 2017, policy C has been replaced with two new policies D and E. Company A would not be expected to re-sign the RSA. However, company B joining later than 2017 after policies D and E was ratified will be expected to sign an RSA with policies A B D E in it.


Consider this alternative bottom line which is spelt out in the RSA and not guesswork.

Company A signs RSA which presents rules and guidelines and tells him the agreement is subject to policies.  In business and I believe also in law, this means the RSA is dependent on the policies.  Not that the policies are dependent on the RSA.

Matters not covered by the RSA or deal with matters that change with time are mandated through policies.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list