[rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng> wrote:

>
> Regards,
> Dewole.
> (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and
> Community-discuss)
>

SO: I do strongly suggest continued cross-posting on policy issues be
avoided.

Regards

>
>
> On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:
>
> Hello Dewole,
>
> Thanks for this comment.
> The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources
> portfolio.  If  the portfolio  changes with new allocation,   member can be
> audited  anytime on the new ressources if required.
> Is this clear enough or shall we make  it explicit  ?
>
> Kind Regards.
>
> *Serge Ilunga*
> *Cell: +243814443160 <%2B243814443160>*
> *Skype: sergekbk*
> *R.D.Congo*
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at tinitop.com> <dewole at tinitop.com>
> Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com> <amelnaud at gmail.com>, "rpd >>
> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net>, General
> Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> <community-discuss at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
> proposal
>
> Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal,
> Arnaud.
>
> To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:
>
> Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;
> Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;
> After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;
> Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;
> Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new)
> number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;
> Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a
> review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review.
>
> Is this a design feature or a bug?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dewole.
>
>
> On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>
> Hi community !
> Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from
> Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the
> section 3.3.3
>
> -'---old version---''
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a. They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants
> investigation.
>
> ----new version-----
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a..They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants
> investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC  staff
> shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this
> review is not applicable to a member  on which a full review has been
> completed in the preceding 24 months.
>
> Regards.
>
> Arnaud.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing listCommunity-Discuss at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161116/33c76af3/attachment.html>