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

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

Mon Apr 8 11:38:38 UTC 2019

Hi SM,

El 8/4/19 12:59, "S. Moonesamy" <sm+af at> escribió:

    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.

Yes and not. While I agree that the legal implications should be observed in the staff analysis, from the previous version nothing was observed by the legal counsel, so I take that as "there are no implications". 

However, laws change, and even if today we may not have any legal implication in our policies, a law change may result in implications in what policies say. In that case, ideally you will update the policy, but meanwhile, the implementation of the policy needs to be affected following the timeframes indicated by the law change.

I know is a very extreme example, but it may happen, and that's just to explain my view that sometimes even if a policy indicates "let's do 100%" of this, the actual implementation (when implemented or in the future) may realize that only "80%" is feasible. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the policy.
    >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?

As said I don't need to ask for it. You mention above 5.1, which I can't find in the policy manual, but in 3.4.1 Draft Policy Proposal, I can read "The Working Group Chair(s) may request AFRINIC to provide an analysis (technical, financial, legal or other), of the impact of the draft policy proposal.", so not the authors!

I'm sure I mention this in Dakar, this should be something automatic for any policy proposal/version and I believe the staff is doing so.
    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.

Well, in my opinion, reading only the policy manual, with is part of the overall legal documents for each RIR, is wrong. You need to make sure to follow *all* the binding documents (in fact all them constitute a "single" one with several parts). If we need to mention in each policy every other part of the legal documents, then it becomes cumbersome to handle. It will be like having in every section of the policy manual something like "if you don't follow this, you're not following the bylaws+RSA+AMA and your resources can be reclaimed".

    S. Moonesamy 

IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

More information about the RPD mailing list