Search RPD Archives
[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up
amelnaud at gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 20:16:29 UTC 2018
Hi Dear Board member Mooneamy,
Thanks for your valuable comments. See below between lines
2018-04-10 20:06 GMT+00:00 S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>:
> I read AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-02. In Section 3.5:
> "One or all initiators of a policy proposal have the option to remain
> Could the anonymity cause any conflict of interest issues?
Of which sort? Who knows those people who are behind policy proposals
and not listed as co-authors ?
> In Section 126.96.36.199:
> "Once adopted by the working group, the initiator(s) grants all rights to
> the working group and the proposal becomes a community document. In all
> matters of intellectual property rights and procedures."
The full sentence reads:
" Once adopted by the working group, the initiator(s) grants all rights to
the working group and the proposal becomes a community document. In all
matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the intention is to
benefit the community and the public at large, while respecting the
legitimate rights of others."
> Does that mean that the author does not have any IPR on the work?
Yes if submitted under the conditions described above
> Is the working group allowed to act as a "copyright owner"?
Yes, through Afrinic
> In Section 3.6:
> "After a draft proposal has reached rough consensus, the AFRINIC
> board of Directors have the obligation to check if process has
> been followed very well."
> Section 188.8.131.52 (a) uses the term "consensus" while 184.108.40.206 (c) uses the
> term "rough consensus". Can a draft proposal can be ratified by the Board
> if it has reached "rough consensus" only?
The working group and the pdp made decision through "rough consensus" and
" consensus" in the document refers to "rough consensus" as stated at
We shall edit the document to make this clearer
> Does Section 3.6 mean that the Board of directors should perform a
> detailed verification of the process which was followed for the draft
This is just about specifying what board already does for the ratification
of policy propsal and which is not written in current PDP
Any suggestion to the text to better match what the board does?
> Is the "will endorse any such adopted policy" sentence in Section 3.7.2.
> in conflict with Section 11.5 (ii) of the Bylaws?
The whole section of PDP variance by board is to reflect section 11.4 and
section 11.5 of the bylaws
Do we have a conflict?
> S. Moonesamy
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the RPD