<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi There,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As requested by Sylvain,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I said – if people feel that RFC7020 needs updating – I’m happy to work with people to do this. I would note however that RFC7020 covers ALL the RIR’s and I would strongly suggest that anyone who does want to pick up the pen and work
on updating this document do so in conjunction with people from across the RIR’s. From my perspective, I would prefer NOT to be an author on this and merely assist where necessary from the IETF perspective. I would also say that, and this is entirely my
perspective, we need to try and avoid specifying corporate governance for RIR’s through the IETF – I am very far from convinced that this would be appropriate and I believe that the communities in each RIR should demand the corporate governance of their respective
RIR’s as they see fit.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">RIR members theoretically already have the power to do this – I mean – AfriNIC’s own bylaws specifically state that members can, by resolution, at an AGMM, specify the policies around the functioning of the company – the question is if
the AfriNIC board will actually table those resolutions – and if they won’t and refuse to aceed to member demands around corporate governance, then no IETF document will make a damn worth of a difference because we will be to far gone.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I have long questioned why AfriNIC refuses to agree to follow the Mauritian code of corporate governance for example, which, while technically being optional because of company size, would make a hell of a lot of sense – and I would question
if the members of AfriNIC shouldn’t for this issue via resolution as specified in the bylaws.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jordi, to respond to your other email – It also raised my eyebrows when I noticed that the BCP was replaced by informational and I’m not quite sure why that happened, but I do see there WAS an IETF last call for 7020 according to the tracker,
and I would say that its critical that if we update that document that such a last call happens again, hence I would not want to see this document go through the ISE – it should go through the informational track – be it AD sponsored or via a working group
(probably through gen-dispatch).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As I said – I’d be happy to AD sponsor this if there isn’t an appropriate working group – though it may be best to push any such update through dispatch to ensure there is IETF consensus to even do this once we have adequate text.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>