My comment in my personal capacity about the CoE was only in relation to the suggestion in the comments of the ISPA document that the CoE be given the power to resolve disputes - taking it out of the hands of the board.
Considering the CoE is purely an advisory body, this would be making them something more than that. If ISPA feels this should be the case, then section 16 would also need to be modified accordingly.
I believe there are perhaps less drastic ways to resolve the comment that lead to this, but that is a personal opinion
Andrew
On 7 May 2026, at 21:04, Andrew Alston via zanog-discuss wrote:
> Anyone is free to configure suggestions on bylaw modifications and this can
> be done at:
>
> https://forms.afrinic.net/brc-comment
>
> I think the question asked by Elaine related to what ISPA plans to submit -
> but that is not to say you can’t make individual submissions, and the bylaw
> review committee would welcome any submissions people have.
i won’t claim to speak for ISPA and/or elaine, but it seems to me, that ISPA’s intent was to show gaps and/or inconsistencies between mauritian law, and afrinic’s bylaws. that, i think, was clearly stated in her message :-)
the CoE is not an inconsistency that relates to mauritian law. or, perhaps more accurately, is not one that the aforementioned ISPA lawyer sees as a conflict. that makes no warrant as to the effectiveness, nor validity of such an organ. it seems to me, that this is one of those items that falls squarely into the “members are also encouraged to make their own submissions” category.
unless, you’re suggesting that ISPA add this in, as an additional point to their submission ..
—n.