Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Staff & Legal Assessements on "Internet Numbers review by AFRINIC"'s Proposal

Alan Barrett alan.barrett at
Fri May 19 13:27:35 UTC 2017

> On 18 May 2017, at 08:05, David Hilario <d.hilario at> wrote:
> Hi Alan,
> Thank you for the reply.
> This is a 360 turn on the assessment, but you only cover reported cases.

I think that the words “minimal impact” were a mistake; what we meant was more like “manageable impact”.  We will notice the impact, but we can probably deal with it.

> Every report will still need a somewhat of research, before it can be discarded, I never believed that each report would be a full scale investigation lasting days/weeks/months.

> Discarding reports at staff discretion is an interesting concept, but it just means that there was no ground to pursue further, it would be very scary if staff arbitrarily starts discarding valid reports without having performed any due diligence.
> Just as it would be very bad if staff starts harassing resource holders where there is no shred of evidence and ground to even start a review.

Under the previous proposal (draft02), even frivolous complaints without a shred of evidence would have needed a full investigation.  Under draft04, they need only a small amount of research or due diligence to establish that a full investigation is not warranted.

> How about "regular reviews"? 
> The policy proposal doesn't give any guidelines on how many to be performed.
> Those will add load on staff, as it is already a matter of several days to get a reply, this will surely not improved by adding regular regular reviews to the workload.

The policy does not specify a number of reviews, so staff will be able to manage their workload by adjusting the number of regular reviews.

Alan Barrett

More information about the RPD mailing list