Profil de personne

Personne

S. Moonesamy

Moonesamy est suivi comme personne, avec des elements qui eclairent son identite, son role ou son contexte operationnel.

Les données disponibles couvrent Rôles: Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC).

Dernière observation 2026-09-25

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

Preuves

Rôle public: S.
Type d'information: S. Moonesamy merite d'etre suivi car les changements de role, de relations, de position de gouvernance ou de perimetre operationnel peuvent affecter les operations reseau et la visibilite du marche.

Détails associés

S. Moonesamy
Appuie l'identite, le role ou le contexte organisationnel de S. Moonesamy.
public people profile

Dernière mise à jour: 2026-09-25

Rôles

Role:Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC)Non évaluéHistorique

Faits sourcés

Participation aux politiques RIR

1RIR concernés

9Politiques suivies

102Messages de politique

9 déc. 2009Première participation

10 juil. 2013Dernière participation

afpub-2008-gen-001hereInconnue · 44 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
AFPUB-2012-DNS-001No Reverse Unless AssignedInconnue · 1 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: The finding concerns this reviewed person record and should not be read as proof that no other historical contributions exist.
10 juil. 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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: 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 mai 2012
I asked AfriNIC for input about the above
10 juil. 2013
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting.
afpub-2012-gen-001AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02Inconnue · 3 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
afpub-2012-gen-002Regional Internet Registry Privacy | AFPUB-2012-GEN-002-DRAFT-02Soutien · 2 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: 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.
5 mai 2012
The retention period for Personal Identifiable Information is three months.
16 mai 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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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-01Inconnue · 4 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: 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 juil. 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-02Inconnue · 3 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: A request to inspect the record is not a vote for or against the proposal.
10 juil. 2013
Is it possible to have the comments published?
AFPUB-2013-V4-002AFPUB-2013-V4-002-DRAFT-01Inconnue · 1 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
AFPUB-2013-V6-001AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT-01Inconnue · 1 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
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
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.
Réserves: This July 10, 2013 message is also associated with three other proposals; those associations do not constitute additional independent statements.
10 juil. 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 LandingInconnue · 43 Messages de discussion
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée

Participation aux politiques RIR

1RIR concernés

9Politiques suivies

102Messages de politique

9 déc. 2009Première participation

10 juil. 2013Dernière participation

afpub-2008-gen-001hereInconnue · 44 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée

AFPUB-2012-DNS-001No Reverse Unless AssignedInconnue · 1 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence

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

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.

Réserves: The finding concerns this reviewed person record and should not be read as proof that no other historical contributions exist.

10 juil. 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

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.

Réserves: 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 mai 2012
I asked AfriNIC for input about the above

10 juil. 2013
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting.

afpub-2012-gen-001AFPUB-2012-GEN-001-DRAFT-02Inconnue · 3 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée

afpub-2012-gen-002Regional Internet Registry Privacy | AFPUB-2012-GEN-002-DRAFT-02Soutien · 2 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence

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

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.

Réserves: 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.

5 mai 2012
The retention period for Personal Identifiable Information is three months.

16 mai 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

AFPUB-2012-V4-001AFPUB-2012-V4-001-DRAFT-01Inconnue · 4 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence

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

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.

Réserves: 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 juil. 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-02Inconnue · 3 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence

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

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.

Réserves: A request to inspect the record is not a vote for or against the proposal.

10 juil. 2013
Is it possible to have the comments published?

AFPUB-2013-V4-002AFPUB-2013-V4-002-DRAFT-01Inconnue · 1 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée

AFPUB-2013-V6-001AFPUB-2013-V6-001-DRAFT-01Inconnue · 1 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence

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

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · 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.

Réserves: This July 10, 2013 message is also associated with three other proposals; those associations do not constitute additional independent statements.

10 juil. 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 LandingInconnue · 43 Messages de discussion

Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée