S. Moonesamy

Moonesamy als Person im Zusammenhang mit Entscheidungen, Verfahren, Governance oder Betrieb der Internet-Infrastruktur; aktuelle Funktion und Zugehörigkeit müssen weiterhin geprüft werden.

Die verfügbaren Daten umfassen Rollen: Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC).

Zuletzt beobachtet 2026-09-25

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

Konfidenz

Öffentliche Rolle: Die zitierten öffentlichen Quellen nennen S.
Informationstyp: Die dokumentierte öffentliche Rolle, Entscheidungen oder rechtliche Beteiligung von S. Moonesamy können Netzinvestitionen, Marktzugang, Infrastrukturpolitik oder Verantwortungsgrenzen beeinflussen; dieses Dossier trennt zitierte Nachweise von der Prüfung der aktuellen Funktion.

Zugehörige Details

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

Zuletzt aktualisiert: 2026-09-25

Rollen

Role:Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC)Noch nicht bewertetHistorisch

Quellenbelegte Fakten

Beteiligung an RIR-Richtlinien

1Beteiligte RIRs

9Beteiligte Richtlinien

102Richtliniennachrichten insgesamt

09.12.2009Erste Beteiligung

10.07.2013Letzte Beteiligung

afpub-2008-gen-001hereUnbekannt · 44 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
AFPUB-2012-DNS-001No Reverse Unless AssignedUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: 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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: 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-02Unbekannt · 3 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
afpub-2012-gen-002Regional Internet Registry Privacy | AFPUB-2012-GEN-002-DRAFT-02Unterstützung · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: 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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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-01Unbekannt · 4 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: 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-02Unbekannt · 3 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: 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-01Unbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
AFPUB-2013-V6-001AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT-01Unbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
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
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · 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.
Bedingungen: 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 LandingUnbekannt · 43 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben