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)

Mike Silber silber.mike at
Mon May 30 13:38:17 UTC 2016

Hi Alain

Glad to see we are in such close agreement.

I think this may be a drafting issue - where tightening up the language will avoid doubt.

For example:

> On 30 May 2016, at 15:28, ALAIN AINA <aalain at> wrote:
> 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 ?
Now I read the words “requires investigation” as placing an obligation on staff.

Now if you use words like “warrants investigation” or “justifies investigation” I would not have an issue. That way the role of staff is clearer. However that qualifier should not apply to an own initiative audit request. So I would split this into two sentences.

From previous experience the identity of the complainer is incredibly important. I have seen competitors using inspection rights to cripple businesses under the guise of the health of the industry. I would give staff the discretion to consider the identity of the complainant.



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

More information about the RPD mailing list