[rpd] inputs on IPv4 Inter-RIR policy proposals - AFRINIC needs this policy now!

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

In message <47B9CD44-F769-42F7-B7A6-9FF70E00540D at consulintel.es>, 
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es> wrote:

>I think that may clarify your points?

Not really.  But thanks for trying.

I raised two points, one of them arguably silly, and the other one
arguably less so.

My first point was that the plain language of Section 3.2 of the Bylaws
could be construed to disable Afrinic's ablity to "transfer" any kind of
"asset" to any party.  And if "asset" were, in this context, construed
broadly, then that would result in the arguably remarkable outcome that
Afrinic could not "transfer" any IP address resources to any party.

Words have meaning, and not just to lawyers, but also to statesmen and
to those debating policy decisions.  So my hope is that Section 3.2 of
the Bylaws may at some point be formally clarified so as to remove any
ambiguity.

My second point was about Section 6.1 of the Bylaws which, on the face
of it, contains a geographically-limited residence/service requirement.

I want to know if that Section still has any current meaning, and if so,
what that meaning is.

I do not assme that just because it is written in the Bylaws that this
section has any actual current operative meaning.  It may perhaps not.
I am just asking the question.  (In the fundamental Constitution, as
amended, of my own home nation, there appear the words "A well regulated
Militia...", however over time, that specific phrase has been adjudicated
to have essentially no meaning whatsoever, and thus, no practical
implications whatsoever.  It may perhaps be likewise for Section 6.1
of the Afrinic Bylaws.)


Regards,
rfg