<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I have reviewed the diff and have the following comments. I limit my review and my comments to the scope of the proposed policy text. I have made no effort to address anything outside of the proposal itself other than to say that at least according to the Diff, the numbering of the non-policy sections got badly screwed up at the beginning.<div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>It does not appear to address any of my previous objections.</div><div class="">2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>13.3.1 should read “…have not been” rather than “…has not been”. (has would be for a singular, whereas the use her is plural)</div><div class="">3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>While the structure in 13.3.2 is cleaned up, there is no material change to the proposal here.</div><div class="">4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>13.3.3 retains all of its original problems as previously described by many, myself included.</div><div class="">5.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Section 13.4 Line 51, I must ask how addresses can be found to be non-compliant. I suggest instead that the grammar be cleaned up as follows:</div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div class="">AfriNIC shall initiate the resource recovery process to reclaim sufficient resources to restore resource holder to compliance.</div></blockquote>6.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>13.4 in general is awkwardly structured and not in a logical order. Consequences defined at the beginning of the section fit better after the rules spelled out in A) and B), for example.<div class="">7.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>13.5 “Results on the review” should be “Results of the review”.</div><div class="">8.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>The acknowledgements are ill-conceived and have no place in the CPM. If the authors wish to acknowledge these people, they are free to do so wherever they wish, but said acknowledgement is not legitimate policy and has no place being inserted into the CPM.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><div class="">In summary, this update does nothing to address concerns previously expressed. It does appear to clean up some of the previous grammatical and syntactic errors, but it also introduces new ones. This proposal remains unnecessary, duplicative, harmful, and ill-advised. I again urge the authors to withdraw it based on the complete lack fo community consensus and their utter unwillingness to make changes that address the actual issues.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>