人物プロフィール
人物Moonesamy はインターネット基盤に関わる意思決定、訴訟、ガバナンス、または運用に関係する人物として確認されています。
確認できる情報は役割: Interim Policy Development Working Group Co-chair (documented June 2011) (AFRINIC)を網羅しています。
S. Moonesamy
public people profile
Chairs: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> S. Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
public people profile
最終更新日: 2026-09-25
出典に基づく事実
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
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.
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · 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.
条件: The finding concerns this reviewed person record and should not be read as proof that no other historical contributions exist.
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
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · 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.
条件: 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.
I asked AfriNIC for input about the above
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting.
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
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
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · 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.
条件: 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.
The retention period for Personal Identifiable Information is three months.
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
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · 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.
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
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.
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · 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.
条件: 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.
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting. Is it possible to have the comments published?
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
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.
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · 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.
条件: A request to inspect the record is not a vote for or against the proposal.
Is it possible to have the comments published?
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
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.
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · 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.
条件: This July 10, 2013 message is also associated with three other proposals; those associations do not constitute additional independent statements.
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting. Is it possible to have the comments published?
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
条件: 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.
I asked AfriNIC for input about the above
I couldn't find the comments from the last meeting.
