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

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

Dewole Ajao dewole at
Mon Apr 8 11:37:40 UTC 2019

Hi SM,

For a while now, the procedure (as part of lessons learnt) has been for 
staff to provide their analysis of draft proposals once they are 
received so it's not really on the author. Co-chairs and staff have long 
agreed that this makes sense.

Availability of such analyses will however not be immediate as (in 
addition to back and forth with the authors for clarification of text 
submitted,) inputs have to be collated across different units of the 
organization and approved by the CEO before being fed back to the 
author(s) and the community.

The exception will be in cases where proposal updates are received 
"close" to public policy meeting (PPM) dates. "Close" will mean received 
within PDP timelines for inclusion on the PPM agenda but probably not 
enough time to go through the analysis and approval described previously 
and allowing for the fact that staff are by then likely to be in 
travel-prep mode.

I hope this helps clarify as you keep asking the author if there will be 
staff assessment/analysis.



On 4/8/2019 11:53 AM, S. Moonesamy wrote:
> 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.
> Ok.
>> 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.
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at

More information about the RPD mailing list