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

[ALAIN AINA]

> On Nov 23, 2016, at 3:53 PM, fransossen at yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Alain,
> 
> > There is a framework for investigation and this proposal serves as  community approved guidelines for implementation.
> > Section 12 of ARIN Policy Manual gives another example.
> > 
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#twelve
> > 
> > Hope this helps
> > 
> > —Alain
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link.
> 
> ARIN's resource review is very clear, it doesn't discriminate resource holders based on size or type of resources.

I just responded to a previous mail on this.

> It doesn't try to define what could be the violations,

This one also does not. Decisions are left to staff.  Section 3.4 only defines when to take actions...
====
3.4 In case of non-compliance and if evidence has been established in accordance with the non-exhaustive list below:
======
If  you prefer not listing what could trigger actions in case of non-compliance and leave this to staff, i  don’t see a problem.

> but rather only the actions that ARIN should take in  case of policy violations. 


> It doesn't mentions non-existent policies,

can you read the followings :

-  http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/membership-fees and search for “transfer” 
-  http://www.afrinic.net/en/services/rs/rsa and search for section 6 (d) (v) 

The proposal says compliance to RSA and policies 


> it stays neutral and refers to the policies in general as to the  whys and hows to be compliant, it is very different from the one being discussed here on this list.

> 
> The ARIN resource review feels more like a procedural document for people to know what to expect from ARIN when conducting their RIR duties and due diligence checks.

  This seems to be the goal here as well.   How can you help ?

> Other than fraud, there are not really any reasons to reclaim any resources.

I heard you but ARIN does not say that.

Thanks

—Alain
> 
> Cheers,
> David Hilario
> 
> 
> 
> 
>