[Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal

[Dewole Ajao]

Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud.

To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:

Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;
Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;
After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;
Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;
Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new) 
number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;
Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a 
review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review.

Is this a design feature or a bug?

Regards,

Dewole.


On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>
> Hi community !
> Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal 
> from Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement 
> to the section 3.3.3
>
> -'---old version---''
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a. They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that 
> warrants investigation.
>
> ----new version-----
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a..They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that 
> warrants investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and 
> AFRINIC  staff  shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the 
> review. However this review is not applicable to a member  on which a 
> full review has been completed in the preceding 24 months.
>
> Regards.
>
> Arnaud.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20161115/0731405b/attachment.html>