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

[Owen DeLong]

> On May 30, 2016, at 06:28, ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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.

Why should a frivolous complaint merit a response?

> 
> 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.

Agreed. 

Owen

> 
> 
>> 
>> 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> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Ornella
>>>> 
>>>> On 27 May 2016, at 17:53, Honest Ornella GANKPA <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
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20160531/f246e8f7/attachment.html>