Hello, Amending the RSA to enable the transfer policy has generated a bunch of discussions and concerns.
It is very important to see that the proposed changes through the updated 6d(v) and the new 6d(vi) address the concerns expressed. *The main/major concern was make sure that we do not create any loopholes to be exploited after.* Other minor changes are harmless and good to have. Cheers Noah On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike: > > "Your interest" is a very personal attack. > > As I mentioned in my previous email, I view the RSA and policy as two > independent documents which 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. > > So by that logic, I don't think there should be any text inside both > documents to be complementary to each other. > > If you think that any of these texts that I pointed out has a legal reason > to remain, feel free to point it out. > > I am not a lawyer, what I do is to point out the texts which I believe are > unrelated to the legal relationship between AFRINIC and its member. > > Even if a certain policy text is missing, we shouldn't expect RSA to > enforce a policy that doesn't exist yet. Rather, we should make a policy > proposal to ratify the policy. > > But anyway, can we discuss specific cause here instead of arguing whether > we should use RSA to manage resource? > > With regards. > > Lu > > On 3 October 2017 at 17:02, 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]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3 October 2017 at 15:53, Omo Oaiya <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 3 Oct 2017, at 06:59, Lu Heng <[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] >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss >> >> >> > > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > > _______________________________________________ > Community-Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss > > -- *./noah*
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
