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

[rpd] AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT02

S. Moonesamy sm+af at
Mon Apr 8 10:53:52 UTC 2019

Hi Jordi,

Thank you for the quick responses.  In case it is not clear, I am 
neither for or against your proposal.  I'll comment below.

At 12:11 AM 08-04-2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>There is no staff assessment for this proposal version (v2).
>There is one for the previous version (v1):

Will there be another staff assessment?

>And I tried to address those in v2.


>The implications in the online voting are to be considered in the 
>implementation phase, as it may have legal implications which are 
>beyond the PDP. If the contract allows policies to restrict the 
>voting, as part of the blocking suggested by the policy, in order to 
>ensure that the member has one more reason to update the contacts, 
>and of course I will be fine with that.

The following is from Section 5.1 of the PDP: "to provide an 
analysis, technical, financial, legal or other, of the impact of the 
draft policy".  The rationale for including "legal" in there is so 
that this working group is aware of the legal implications before it 
takes a decision on a proposal.  The Registration Service Agreement 
is a contract between Afrinic Ltd and a Resource Member.  I read it 
quickly and I could not find information about voting.

>In some RIRs this is possible, not in some others. So, if the 
>implementation determines that this is not feasible in this case, of 
>course, the implementation will need to make the blocking in such 
>way that it respects the online voting.

In my opinion, it is not the implementation which determines who is 
allowed to vote.  I suggest deciding whether this is what the 
proposal aims to do.

>If there is a new an updated impact analysis (for v2), I will be 
>able to provide also a new version to try to address this and other concerns.

Did you ask for another impact analysis?

At 12:59 AM 08-04-2019, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>I've re-read the bylaws ( and the RSA and 
>AMA (
>Unless I'm wrong, there is not any explicit mention regarding if in 
>case of policy violation, the voting rights can be or can't be 
>suspended, so this may depend on the overall interpretation by the 
>Mauritius law.
>This is typically the same actually for other obligations. So if the 
>law allows a member that is not paying the bills (same for not 
>following policies) to get its rights suspended, voting is typically 
>one of them.

The two cases are, in my opinion, not similar.  A person reading the 
proposal would not notice that the "rights" or his/her organization 
could be suspended.  I would not have noticed it either as there 
wasn't any information to point to that.

S. Moonesamy 

More information about the RPD mailing list