<div dir="ltr">Hi Dear Board member Mooneamy,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for your valuable comments. See below between lines<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-04-10 20:06 GMT+00:00 S Moonesamy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sm+afrinic@elandsys.com" target="_blank">sm+afrinic@elandsys.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hello,<br>
<br>
I read AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-02. In Section 3.5:<span class="gmail-"><br>
<br>
"One or all initiators of a policy proposal have the option to remain anonymous."<br>
<br></span>
Could the anonymity cause any conflict of interest issues?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Of which sort? Who knows those people who are behind policy proposals and not listed as co-authors ?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In Section <a href="http://3.5.1.1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">3.5.1.1</a>:<br>
<br>
"Once adopted by the working group, the initiator(s) grants all rights to<br>
the working group and the proposal becomes a community document. In all<br>
matters of intellectual property rights and procedures."<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The full sentence reads:</div><div>" Once adopted by the working group, the initiator(s) grants all rights to the working group and the proposal becomes a community document. In all matters of intellectual property rights and procedures, the intention is to benefit the community and the public at large, while respecting the legitimate rights of others."</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Does that mean that the author does not have any IPR on the work?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes if submitted under the conditions described above</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Is the working group allowed to act as a "copyright owner"?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, through Afrinic </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In Section 3.6:<br>
<br>
"After a draft proposal has reached rough consensus, the AFRINIC<br>
board of Directors have the obligation to check if process has<br>
been followed very well."<br>
<br>
Section 3.5.1.4 (a) uses the term "consensus" while 3.5.1.4 (c) uses the term "rough consensus". Can a draft proposal can be ratified by the Board if it has reached "rough consensus" only?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The working group and the pdp made decision through "rough consensus" and " consensus" in the document refers to "rough consensus" as stated at section 3.4</div><div><br></div><div>We shall edit the document to make this clearer </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Does Section 3.6 mean that the Board of directors should perform a detailed verification of the process which was followed for the draft proposal?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is just about specifying what board already does for the ratification of policy propsal and which is not written in current PDP</div><div><br></div><div>Any suggestion to the text to better match what the board does?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Is the "will endorse any such adopted policy" sentence in Section 3.7.2. in conflict with Section 11.5 (ii) of the Bylaws?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The whole section of PDP variance by board is to reflect section 11.4 and section 11.5 of the bylaws</div><div>Do we have a conflict? </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Regards,<br>
S. Moonesamy<div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Regards </div><div><br></div><div>Arnaud </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5">
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mail<wbr>man/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>