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

[rpd] PDP-BIS Follow-up

ALAIN AINA aalain at
Fri Apr 20 16:02:22 UTC 2018


> On 12 Apr 2018, at 22:32, S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at> wrote:
> 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.

I thought we agreed long ago, participation in PDPWG is by individuals and affiliation does not matter.

>> 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.

You have not been asked to do so. :-)

>  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.  

Not only the chairs should know and master the details of the process. We shall all do. 

> Over the years there hasn't be a case where the Board has rejected a proposal which was sent for ratification.

So let not worry too much about this.

> 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”.

If the PDP is well followed, there should not be any left out point which may put the BoD in contravention of fudiciary  duties. imposes  an impact analysis  about all policy proposals which covers aspects board must be interested in as well.

……….. The Discussion Phase The PDWG Chair shall request the AFRINIC CEO to conduct and publish an impact analysis about the proposal before it can be moved to the Review Phase. The goal of this analysis is to provide relevant supporting information to facilitate the discussions about the proposal and provide some projections about the possible impact if it were to be accepted. This analysis will contain the following points:
		• AFRINIC understanding of the proposed policy
		• Impact on the registry and Internet Number Resources
		• Impact on AFRINIC operations/services
		• Legal impact

Unless we want to give the BoD a  “veto” right  on the  PDP,  making sure the process was followed should be more than enough.

In all cases, if board rejects ratification of a proposal submitted, section 3.6  says what to expect:

3.6  Policy Ratification

In case of a rejection, the AFRINIC board of directors must justify and publish the reason on the resources policy discussion list ( rpd at and on the AFRINIC website, and ask the working group to rectify the issue.


>> Any suggestion to the text  to better match what the board does?
> I cannot suggest text on behalf of the Board.

We do not expect board to provide text. The request  for text was to the PDPWG participant as the PDP should define how all parties involved act.

>> 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 …"

Ok. We will make this section clearer as referral to 11.5 of the bylaws  for the endorsement seems not sufficient.



> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy   
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list