<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Dear Ashok,</p>
<p>Thank you for your legal assessment. Would you be kind enough to
respond inline like the authors did.</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Sami
GPG Key ID: 0x36d57440</pre>
<p><br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+tgvaV0gRF-mTLOfMWL+vemzZCTQ8wqjAdNqm4W+mEBGSDT6w@mail.gmail.com">On
12 July 2017 at 21:28, Arnaud AMELINA <span dir="ltr"><<a
href="mailto:amelnaud@gmail.com" target="_blank">amelnaud@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto">Dear Ashok,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Thank you very much for your responses.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">1. We are still in agreement that the review
can be done by AFRINIC through a policy proposal as you
stated all time.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">2. According to your own legal assessment,
there seems to be some risks associated to the review as
mandated by this version of the policy proposal.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">3. You agree that these risks can be managed</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">And your response states:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">- There is no problem with 13.3.2 (Selected
scenario)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">- There is no problem with 13.3.3.a (reported
scenario: members asked to be reviewed)</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">You also said nothing about about
13.3.1(Random scenario) and we therefore assume you are fine
with that too.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Your concern lies with 13.3.3.b ( Reported
Scenario): community complaint made against a member that
warrants investigation.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">A. Your main concern is about the reliability,
admissibility and authenticity of the evidences to be
provided by the third party to AFRINIC while reporting a
ressource and you said:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">====</div>
<div dir="auto">“ I shall never advise AFRINIC to embark upon
an exercise where it will have to shoulder an obligation to
test the reliability, admissibility and authenticity of such
facts/data/information submitted by a third party.”</div>
<div dir="auto">======</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Yes, it is the responsibility of the source of
complaint to provide enough information to convince Afrinic
to engage in the evaluation of the evidence/facts and a
subsequent investigation if required. As such there is no
need for a legal document. If supporting legal documents
are required by Afrinic or provided by the source, this must
be done through the appropriate mechanism which the legal
counsel shall indicate to AFRINIC.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The current version of the 13.3.3.b is PDPWG
consensual version introduced since version 3.0. Authors
would not object to reverting to the original version of the
text which says:</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">======</div>
<div dir="auto">c) Reported:</div>
<div dir="auto">The members have requested the audit
themselves or there has been a community complaint made
against them that requires investigation.</div>
<div dir="auto">======</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">B. Your other concern is about the appeal
process, and you said :</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">=====</div>
<div dir="auto">“Whether you segregate the appeals as against
(i) the result of the review or (ii) actions taken by
AFRINIC based on the result of the review, in both cases
AFRINIC is a party thereto. It cannot, consequently, put up
a mechanism to have its own action reviewed. It simply does
not make sense.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">This is why since the beginning, we made a
reference to the "Mauritius Code of Civil Procedure" where
the process for arbitration is already provided for."</div>
<div dir="auto">======</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The focus in this policy proposal is on appeal
process for the result of a review. The appeal for action
taken based on result of review clearly fall under the
Mauritius code of civil procedure as the RSA is governed by
the Mauritius laws and the RSA has no other arbitration
mechanism.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">The RSA has all the provisions for
indemnification, liabilities, etc and the community trust
the organization supported by its legal counsel to do the
right things and stand to defend it everywhere.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">As this proposal is describing how AFRINIC
shall conduct the review mandated by the RSA and policies,
it is proposed (by AFRINIC community) that in case of
disagreement on the result of review done by AFRINIC Ltd
(which are mostly based on compliance to policies), a
reviewed member is given a chance (not mandatory) to
challenge the review results before an appeal panel of
knowledgeable volunteers from the community. The Panel
conclusion on the result of the review is final, but does
not prevent the appeal against action taken by AFRINIC.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Hope this Helps</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">—Arnauld (on behalf of the authors)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>