> On Jun 11, 2019, at 12:54 AM, Ish Sookun <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Owen, > > On 5/28/19 9:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Indeed, the one and only legitimate item on the agenda was then deferred >> to the next meeting followed by, perhaps, the most absurd question and >> most ridiculous answer in the entire set of minutes: >> >> “The Chair asked the Board whether there is a need to seek SM’s >> consent before the public release of the Court Rulings.” >> >> >> Let me get this straight… The Chair felt compelled to ask the board >> whether or not they needed the consent of a single board member (which I >> see no particular reason to ask this particular board member and there >> is no explanation in the minutes) prior to the public release of a >> document which is ALREADY PUBLIC? How can the board possibly do anything >> before the public release of a document which was, by definition, >> publicly released at the time the board received it? > > I do not agree with your statement that this is an absurd question. In > fact, I believe it is a legitimate requirement to have the person's > consent before publishing any document that contains personal > information about the person.
If their information is already on a document which is ARLEADY PUBLIC, then either they gave their consent (as is the case with board members when they sign on as directors of the company, by law, and is also the case for parties to a legal proceeding in most cases) to the publication of the information or their information was already published without their consent. The further publication of that material to a group that already has access to it via other means does not, in any case, cause further harm, so it is an absurd question. > AFRINIC Ltd being a registered company in Mauritius has to abide to the > Data Protection Act [1] of Mauritius. Yes, but there’s nothing in the DPA of Mauritius that requires one to hold public information which has already been published by a court of law as private. Anyone is free to publish any public court document as far and as wide as they wish to the best of my knowledge. In the board minutes, it seems clear that Ashok feels this is an appropriate interpretation of the situation. If you disagree, I think you should, perhaps take it up with him. > In fact, on the same note, I notice that the privacy statement [2] of > afrinic.net dates back to September 2015 and refers the Data Protection > Act 2004 instead of the 2017's amended act. So what? What we’re talking about here isn’t anyone’s private information, we’re talking about a public court document which was published by the court and is a matter of public record. Owen > > Regards, > > Ish Sookun > > [1] > http://dataprotection.govmu.org/English/Publications/Documents/Act%20No.%2020%20-%20The%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202017.pdf > > [2] https://afrinic.net/privacy
_______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
