Exactly Mike. Thanks. > On 3 Oct 2017, at 10:02, Mike Silber <[email protected]> wrote: > > Lu > > I think you are misinterpreting the comment made. > > I think both Omo and Adewole were supporting the principle you expressed > (resource management is better addressed in policy than in a legal > agreement). Apologies to both if I am misrepresenting you. > > The concern being raised is that absent specific policy on those issues we > cannot remove those clauses from the RSA, lest we create a lacunae that could > cause problems. > > The suggestion (as I view it) as that we propose and finalise policy to > replace the items in the RSA and once the policy has been ratified, we agree > a mechanism to remove that issue from the RSA. > > I did not see any ad hominem attack and I don’t think any was intended. > > Mike > >> On 3 Oct 2017, at 10:27, Lu Heng <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3 October 2017 at 15:53, Omo Oaiya <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> On 3 Oct 2017, at 06:59, Lu Heng <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Those ip addresses management clause inside RSA was written by lawyers, not >>> the community. According to bottom up process, only policy can dictate how >>> we use IP addresses. >>> >> >> It is AfriNIC that facilitates this bottom up process. It is also it >> responsibility to coordinate the management of INR. Some might say this is >> its primary responsibility. >> >> Until a policy gets developed by the community, the RSA is the only >> mechanism available for fufilling this management mandate. Your interest >> in removing these clauses from the RSA is probably better served by >> proposing policy that makes them redundant as Dewole suggests. >> >> -Omo >> >> >> >> "My interest" is a weird misinterpretation and completely not true(why must >> it get personal every time, omo? ) I barely point out the clause that >> contains IP address management material(and I might have missed some). >> >> Those words are written by lawyers to manage IP addresses - this shouldn't >> happen in the very first place, because in the bottom up process, only >> community-developed policies are able to manage the IP address, which is the >> golden rule of bottom up process. Operators get to decide how they want to >> use and manager the very resource they are using instead of lawyers. >> >> By your logic, if there is a missing item in the policy, we should simply >> ask lawyers to add it to the RSA until community makes a redundant policy - >> but this is not how PDP works. PDP is not served as a way to replicate what >> lawyers wrote. Rather, if you think there is a missing item in the policy, >> you will have to make a policy proposal, and see if community agrees. >> >> RSA should in no way serve as a complementary to the policy, rather, they >> are two independent documents that serve for entirely different purposes. >> While RSA allows AFRINIC to establish a legal relationship with its members >> so AFRINIC can be funded, policies are specifically designed to manage >> internet resources. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Community-Discuss mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
— Omo Oaiya CTO/Directeur Technique, WACREN Mobile: +234 806 4522778, +221 784 305 224 Skype: kodion http://www.wacren.net
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
