Search RPD Archives
[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up
sm+afrinic at elandsys.com
Thu Apr 12 22:32:08 UTC 2018
At 01:16 PM 12-04-2018, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>Of which sort? Who knows those people who
>are behind policy proposals and not listed as co-authors ?
Please see Section 4.2 of the Terms of Reference
of the Appeal Committee. One example of what
could be viewed as conflict of interest is affiliation.
>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
Please see my comment below.
>Yes, through Afrinic
I'll leave this to the legal side.
>The working group Â and the pdp made decision
>through "rough consensus" and " consensus" in
>the document refers Â to "rough consensus" as stated at section 3.4
>We shall edit the document to make this clearer
>This is just about specifying what
>board already does for the ratification of
>policy propsal and which is not written in current PDP
I cannot speak for the Board. I would not
described what I do as a detailed verification of
the process as the Chairs are better placed to
understand all the details. Over the years there
hasn't be a case where the Board has rejected a
proposal which was sent for ratification.
Please see the comments from the Legal
Counsel. One of the comments is: "the Board is
bound by other legal instruments such as the
Companies Act and other relevant laws of the
Republic of Mauritius. If a proposal would place
the directors in contravention of the duties
which they owe to the Company, then ratification
could be withheld as a matter of law,
notwithstanding the PDP. The Board cannot be
bound, therefore - for the ratification process, only to the PDP".
>Any suggestion to the text to better match what the board does?
I cannot suggest text on behalf of the Board.
>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?
Section 11.5 (ii) has the following: "In the
event that such a policy submitted by the Board
is not endorsed, the said policy shall not be
enforced or implemented following
its non-endorsement; ..." The current text has "will endorse ..."
More information about the RPD