[rpd] New Proposal - "Internet Number Resources Audit by AFRINIC (AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01)

[ALAIN AINA]

Hi,

> On May 29, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alain
> 
> You and I are in agreement on most issues, except:
> 
> On 28 May 2016, at 14:55, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net <mailto:aalain at trstech.net>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Let not focus too much on how we handle reports and complaints. Staff will provide supporting documents on how they will implement.
>> 
>> Reasons for reports, documentations to be provided and affected resources and parties, shall tell staff what to do.
> 
> I do not believe that complainants (especially competitor complainants) have the right to "tell staff what to do". I believe they have the right to inform staff and staff - taking all factors into account - have the right to dismiss the complaints, ignore the complaint, conduct a preliminary review to determine if further action is required or embark on a full audit.

I think here too, we are in agreement except  for  the options of “dismissing or ignoring” complaints. All complains must be responded to.

As for whether a report triggers an investigation and what type of investigation, i said, it all depends on  :

- reasons for the  report
- documentation supporting the report
- ressources/parties affected
- etc.

All at staff discretion. 

Please let not try to define type of complainers.  Whoever complains is irrelevant.


> 
> I have no problem with policy "telling staff what to do" however the current draft gives a complainant that right, which I do not believe is justifiable.


Section 3.c read
================

 Reported:
The members have requested the audit themselves or there has been a community complaint made against them that requires investigation.

=============

What makes you draw  such conclusion ?

—Alain


> 
> Mike
> 
>> 
>> If the question is still "on which basis an organization would be reported by another ?”
>> 
>> Non-complance to policies and RSA basis coupled with information to establish evidences as listed at section 3.4.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> —Alain
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 27, 2016, at 10:48 PM, Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com <mailto:silber.mike at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Ornella
>>> 
>>> On 27 May 2016, at 17:53, Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at gmail.com <mailto:honest1989 at gmail.com>> wrote
>>>> I have one question however: on which basis an organization would be reported by another? 
>>>> 
>>> Excellent question! I would suggest that reporting should not automatically trigger an audit. Personally I would prefer to just confirm the audit right (which already exists, so this may be unnecessary but not really a problem to confirm it), and leave it to staff to determine if and when to invoke them.
>>> 
>>> Competitor complains are IMHO not a valid basis for an automatic audit and staff should be able to weed out valid complaints from attempts to disrupt.
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160530/a8b6f544/attachment.html>