Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Proposal - "Internet Number Resources Audit by AFRINIC (AFPUB-2016-GEN-001-DRAFT01)
silber.mike at gmail.com
Mon May 30 13:38:17 UTC 2016
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.
> On 30 May 2016, at 15:28, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:
> 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 ?
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...
More information about the RPD