Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

ALAIN AINA aalain at
Mon May 30 13:28:19 UTC 2016


> On May 29, 2016, at 1:38 PM, Mike Silber <silber.mike at> wrote:
> Hi Alain
> You and I are in agreement on most issues, except:
> On 28 May 2016, at 14:55, ALAIN AINA <aalain at <mailto:aalain at>> 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

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 ?


> 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 <mailto:silber.mike at>> wrote:
>>> Hi Ornella
>>> On 27 May 2016, at 17:53, Honest Ornella GANKPA <honest1989 at <mailto:honest1989 at>> 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 <mailto:RPD at>
>>> <>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at <mailto:RPD at>
>> <>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list