> On 13 May 2020, at 10:41, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "The Policy Compliance Dashboard” shows to each member its status of policy
> compliance, collected by means of a periodical review, automated as much as
> possible. The dashboard will show all possible details to match the policies
> and RSA, such as:
>
> * Contractual obligations (such as status of payments or documents).
> * Lack of response from the member.
> ...
> * Tracking of repeated and/or continued policy violations.
If an LIR is seriously delinquent in the ways listed above, what’s the point of
putting that info in this proposed dashboard? The member won’t be paying
attention to it, just like they’ve been ignoring the NCC’s invoices and
requests for information.
It’s not clear to me that this proposed dashboard is useful. What problem is it
solving? Where’s the use case(s)?
You’ve said the proposed policy compliance review would be automated as much as
possible. But some aspects will involve making subjective judgments that cannot
be automated - ie assessments of outdate whois info or lack of maintenance of
the reverse delegation. We’d probably need the DNS WG to come up with some
definitions or maybe a policy on lack of maintenance of reverse delegations.
Once there’s more clarity on this idea, I think it should be considered by the
NCC Services WG. It appears to be a service thing. It doesn’t seem to be a
policy matter at all and is therefore inappropriate for the AP WG.
