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

Owen DeLong owen at
Wed Aug 4 08:12:35 UTC 2021

> On Aug 3, 2021, at 17:59 , Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at> wrote:


> It is truly speechless to see you repeat something you learned in the US and believe that this same model applies every other situations or any RIR equally, especially in a scenario you seem insistently defending lately.


I don’t know whether it applies in every other situation or not. I do know that each of the 5 RIRs is structured as a not for profit corporation. Each of these corporations is organized under the laws of a particular set of jurisdictions:

ARIN Chantilly, VA, US
LACNIC Montevideo, UY
RIPE-NCC Amsterdam, NL

I don’t know the details of the legal framework for RIPE-NCC or LACNIC, but I’d be very surprised if they are not the same.

However, in the case of AFRINIC, APNIC, and ARIN, what I have said is true.

> You simply disregard important stuff that applies and try to fit to your own personal believe or way you think this should work, but it doesn't in practice.


What, exactly, is it that you think I have disregarded here? You seem to be the one who wishes to disregard the Mauritian companies act, the organizations bylaws, the powers of the board, and nearly anything else that doesn’t fit into your fantasy of how things should be.

> It is so simplistic and easy to claim Board can apply something based on a void article just because it is written there disregarding totally what is above it and what it means to Internet Governance system.


You are claiming that the bylaws are a void article? Interesting. What is your basis in law for this? The companies act is pretty clear about the need for the company to have (and abide by) a constitution (which in AFRINIC’s case is its bylaws).

Where is the exception that makes this a void article? Under what authority does it do so?

> And what is even worst is to ignore there is an appeal going on for the policy and try to make Board adopt a policy with that status or even worst commit a illegal action by adopting by itself, in a controversial moment and which will only be of interest to a few members at this rush.


You continue to claim that it would be an illegal act for the board to pass an emergency policy, but you provide no basis for this claim.

> Who is really interested in all this rush?


Honestly, I’m not sure how many members would prefer to be able to move to a less dramatic registry that has a set fo rules it actually follows.


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

More information about the RPD mailing list