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

[Alan Barrett]

> On 25 Aug 2017, at 16:02, Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> We should  get the Legal Counsel to also look at the matter and advise. Too sensitive.

The legal adviser has provided advice to me on many occasions.  When I try to summarise his advice, I may make mistakes in minor details, but I am not making a mistake about the main point: The current RSA prohibits transfers (except for mergers and acquisitions), and removing that prohibition will require changing the RSA.

> RSA is the contractual agreement which introduce and enforce  policies and  has clearly solved cases of conflict between itself and policies.
> What I  am trying to say is that we have to be mindful of the fact that the policies supersede the RSA which depends on them and as much as we members are subjected to the RSA, policies reign supreme.

The policies express the will of the community.  The RSA is a legal agreement.  If the will of the community conflicts with the RSA, then the community will expext the RSA to be changed.  That’s what’s about to happen.

>> The RSA also has a clause that says "except in the event of The Applicant becoming the subject of merger and/or acquisition proceedings, the transfer of number resources is strictly prohibited”.   Even if there’s a policy that allows transfers, the RSA prohibits transfers, and the member has agreed to follow the RSA, so the member may not make a transfer.
> 
> This is not valid if the RSA is subject to policies.   If policies say member can transfer, then policy overrides any provisions of the  RSA with regards to this aspect.

“This agreement is subject to policies” means “policies can add additional restrictions”; it does not mean that policies can remove restrictions.

> In fact, how is this different from the current situation? 
> 
> 1. RSA set default rules ( prohibits transfers) and bind members to policies
> 2. Members sign RSA 
> 3. RSA states Policies supremacy
> 4. Policy allows  certain transfer (intra region only) and states rules and conditions

But your point 3 does not apply.  Perhaps it might be useful to say something like that in a future version of the RSA, but it’s not in the current RSA.

Alan Barrett