S. Moonesamy

تُعرّف السجلات العامة المستشهد بها S.

تشمل الأدلة المتاحة الأدوار: Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC).

الأحدث 2026-09-25

الأدوار: Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC)

الثقة

الدور العام: Moonesamy كشخص مرتبط بقرارات أو دعاوى أو حوكمة أو عمليات ذات صلة بالبنية التحتية للإنترنت؛ ولا يزال المنصب والانتماء الحاليان بحاجة إلى تحقق.
نوع المعلومات: قد يؤثر الدور العام أو القرارات أو المشاركة القانونية الموثقة لـ S. Moonesamy في الاستثمار في الشبكات أو النفاذ إلى السوق أو سياسات البنية التحتية أو حدود المسؤولية؛ ويفصل هذا الملف بين السجلات المستشهد بها والتحقق من المنصب الحالي.

التفاصيل ذات الصلة

S. Moonesamy
S. Moonesamy
public people profile
S. Moonesamy
Chairs: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> S. Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
public people profile

آخر تحديث: 2026-09-25

الأدوار

Role:Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC)لم يتم التقييم بعدتاريخي

حقائق موثقة

المشاركة في سياسات السجلات الإقليمية

1السجلات التي شارك فيها

9السياسات التي شارك فيها

102إجمالي رسائل السياسات

09‏/12‏/2009أول مشاركة

10‏/07‏/2013آخر مشاركة

afpub-2008-gen-001hereغير معروفة · 44 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: لم يُذكر موقف صريح
AFPUB-2012-DNS-001No Reverse Unless Assignedغير معروفة · 1 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
The request to publish meeting comments does not endorse or reject reverse-delegation enforcement. This evidence alone provides no pair of substantive positions on No Reverse Unless Assigned to compare.
No Reverse Unless Assigned
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · The request to publish meeting comments does not endorse or reject reverse-delegation enforcement. This evidence alone provides no pair of substantive positions on No Reverse Unless Assigned to compare.
الشروط: The finding concerns this reviewed person record and should not be read as proof that no other historical contributions exist.
10‏/07‏/2013
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting. Is it possible to have the comments published?
Regional Internet Registry Privacy | AFPUB-2012-GEN-002-DRAFT-02 · No Reverse Unless Assigned
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · Seeking institutional input on the privacy draft and requesting published meeting comments both concern information needed for deliberation. That procedural similarity does not establish a common substantive position on privacy and reverse delegation, which regulate different matters. The evidence supports neither a contradiction nor a general claim of consistency across these policies.
الشروط: The exchanges are separated by more than a year and concern different decisions. · Repeated associations of the July 2013 message add no independent comparison evidence.
16‏/05‏/2012
I asked AfriNIC for input about the above
10‏/07‏/2013
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting.
afpub-2012-gen-001AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02غير معروفة · 3 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: لم يُذكر موقف صريح
afpub-2012-gen-002Regional Internet Registry Privacy | AFPUB-2012-GEN-002-DRAFT-02تأييد · 2 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
The May 5 draft proposes data minimization and a three-month general retention period. On May 16, Moonesamy reports that he requested AFRINIC input and had not received a reply. The later message neither withdraws the draft nor endorses a different retention period, so it does not establish a change of substantive position. The supplied record contains only one articulated version of his privacy proposal.
Regional Internet Registry Privacy | AFPUB-2012-GEN-002-DRAFT-02
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · The May 5 draft proposes data minimization and a three-month general retention period. On May 16, Moonesamy reports that he requested AFRINIC input and had not received a reply. The later message neither withdraws the draft nor endorses a different retention period, so it does not establish a change of substantive position. The supplied record contains only one articulated version of his privacy proposal.
الشروط: The three-month period belongs to this May 2012 draft, not a later draft or an adopted rule. · The absence of a reply is the author's report at that time, not independent proof of an institution-wide failure to respond.
05‏/05‏/2012
The retention period for Personal Identifiable Information is three months.
16‏/05‏/2012
I asked AfriNIC for input about the above ( https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2012/002136.html ). There has not been any reply.
Regional Internet Registry Privacy | AFPUB-2012-GEN-002-DRAFT-02 · No Reverse Unless Assigned
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · Seeking institutional input on the privacy draft and requesting published meeting comments both concern information needed for deliberation. That procedural similarity does not establish a common substantive position on privacy and reverse delegation, which regulate different matters. The evidence supports neither a contradiction nor a general claim of consistency across these policies.
AFPUB-2012-V4-001AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01غير معروفة · 4 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
The available contribution requests access to meeting comments and contains no expressed position on the Anycast proposal. It cannot demonstrate either repeated support or a reversal on the allocation criteria.
AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · The available contribution requests access to meeting comments and contains no expressed position on the Anycast proposal. It cannot demonstrate either repeated support or a reversal on the allocation criteria.
الشروط: The same procedural message is linked to the four proposals considered together; it must be counted once when assessing the breadth of the speaker's evidence.
10‏/07‏/2013
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting. Is it possible to have the comments published?
AFPUB-2013-GEN-001AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02غير معروفة · 3 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
The shared request for meeting comments is procedural. It supplies no substantive position on the academic allocation proposal and no evidence of a change in such a position.
AFPUB-2013-GEN-001-DRAFT-02
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · The shared request for meeting comments is procedural. It supplies no substantive position on the academic allocation proposal and no evidence of a change in such a position.
الشروط: A request to inspect the record is not a vote for or against the proposal.
10‏/07‏/2013
Is it possible to have the comments published?
AFPUB-2013-V4-002AFPUB-2013-V4-002-DRAFT-01غير معروفة · 1 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: لم يُذكر موقف صريح
AFPUB-2013-V6-001AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT-01غير معروفة · 1 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق
Moonesamy asks for publication of comments from the last meeting. The request concerns the evidence available for evaluating the shared proceedings; it does not express support or opposition to this proposal's substantive rules.
AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT-01
التقييم: الأدلة غير كافية لتقييم الاتساق · Moonesamy asks for publication of comments from the last meeting. The request concerns the evidence available for evaluating the shared proceedings; it does not express support or opposition to this proposal's substantive rules.
الشروط: This July 10, 2013 message is also associated with three other proposals; those associations do not constitute additional independent statements.
10‏/07‏/2013
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting. Is it possible to have the comments published?
AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02IPv4 Soft Landingغير معروفة · 43 رسائل النقاش
اتساق وجهة النظر: لم يُذكر موقف صريح