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

[Mike Silber]

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 trstech.net> 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.

Regards

Mike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160530/0bc6b30d/attachment.html>