<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div></div><div>Hi Alain</div><div><br></div><div>You and I are in agreement on most issues, except:</div><div><br>On 28 May 2016, at 14:55, ALAIN AINA <<a href="mailto:aalain@trstech.net">aalain@trstech.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Hello,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Let not focus too much on how we handle reports and complaints. Staff will provide supporting documents on how they will implement.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Reasons for reports, documentations to be provided and affected resources and parties, shall tell staff what to do.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>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.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Mike</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">If the question is still "on which basis an organization would be reported by another ?”</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Non-complance to policies and RSA basis coupled with information to establish evidences as listed at section 3.4.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">—Alain</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 27, 2016, at 10:48 PM, Mike Silber <<a href="mailto:silber.mike@gmail.com" class="">silber.mike@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div dir="auto" class=""><div class=""></div><div class="">Hi Ornella</div><div class=""><br class="">On 27 May 2016, at 17:53, Honest Ornella GANKPA <<a href="mailto:honest1989@gmail.com" class="">honest1989@gmail.com</a>> wrote</div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><p class="MsoNormal">I have one question however: on which basis an organization would be reported by another? </p></div></div></blockquote><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Mike</div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">RPD mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class=""><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>RPD mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></body></html>