[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up

[S Moonesamy]

Hi Arnaud,
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  and the pdp made decision 
>through "rough consensus" and " consensus" in 
>the document refers  to "rough consensus" as stated at section 3.4
>
>We shall edit the document to make this clearer

Thanks.

>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 ..."

Regards,
S. Moonesamy