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

[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Call for AFRINIC’s registry service migration to other RIRs

Wed Aug 4 06:51:22 UTC 2021

So … what we are basically concluding here is that the *creation* of AFRINIC was against the terms stated in ICP-2.

That invalidates totally the AFRINIC mandate, which is really bad.

You’re probably right that it will be dificult for the community to enforce that in a long civil proccess, however may be the other RIRs and ICANN have something to say. It was a clear mistake and should be corrected.

Ideally the Board should ask the membership if they want to correct that, that’s *one choice* to resolve the problem.

In any case I still believe that the legal counsel is wrong because what the proposal is doing is actually *accepting explicitly* what the bylaws already have and this the *seconds choice*.

The Board will avoid an unnecesary modification of the bylaws, but the community has expressed their willigness to accept that.

I can’t see how that can be understood, by any means, as enchroaching them.

So for example, you have a rule in your company that enforces to save energy. And the shareholders and the employees get together and write a rule for that as well, consistent with your own rule. You can say it is redundant in this example, but in the case of the AFRINIC proposal, even if it may seen as redundant it is a matter of correcting something that is missing, because the managemente of the PDP belongs to the Community, not the membership.

The bylaws aren’t providing the power to the communidy to develop the PDP, the policies, etc., because it is already the community duty, not the board one.




El 4/8/21 2:38, "Owen DeLong" <owen at> escribió:

On Aug 1, 2021, at 23:47 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at> wrote:

I’ve discussed *many* times that this right should be provided by the community and never by the bylaws, but *right now* is in the bylaws, we like it or not.

Indeed, it is the bylaw change of 2012 that even granted the community any control over policy at all.

The current version and links to all previous versions (2007, 2012, 2016) are available here:

If one reads the 2007 version, you will see that the policy process is granted entirely to the board without any structured process for the community. Thus, it is interesting that AFRINIC was somehow able to pass muster for ICP-2 in April, 2005. I have to wonder where the pre-2005 bylaws are and what policy development process existed at that time given the text in the 2007 bylaws and the changes implemented in the 2012 bylaws which basically created the PDWG and the PDP.

The policy that the board didn’t want to ratify and I’m still waiting for a response to my email, was resolving that.

I think you’ve probably gotten about all the response you will get. Their legal advisor told them it was out of scope for the PDP and overreached policy into bylaw territory (paraphrased).

Personally, I think he was correct (a rarity).

If you want to make most of the changes proposed in that policy proposal, you should resubmit them as a motion to a members meeting and amend the bylaws accordingly.

That will have the effect you want, and short of refusing to put it on the agenda of an AGMM, the board cannot avoid implementation if you are able to get an affirmative vote to pass the motion.

The community already decided that they *want that* when this policy reached consensus.

But it’s a bylaw matter, not a policy matter, so it isn’t the community that gets to decide. It needs to amend the bylaws and those are clearly under the control of the membership. I you really think this is a good idea, then submit a motion to amend the bylaws.

The Board has the tool on his hands if they want to reconsider the ratification!

They really don’t. The board does not have the power to amend the bylaws and contrary to what is often stated on this list, in a contest between the CPM and the bylaws in terms of which document staff and management must follow, the bylaws are the clear winner because the legal consequences of violating the CPM are most likely limited to civil damages while violating the corporate constitution can result in criminal and civil liability (as I understand it in most jurisdictions, IANAL, MU may be different).


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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list