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 list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
_______________________________________________
Community-Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
