Policy Compliance Dashboard

Conflicting version and date labels prevent a simple chronology · The first document identifies Draft 2, submitted 25 September 2026. The second identifies Draft 1 and 30 April 2026 but separately displays Version 3.0 and includes a June assessment of Draft 1. These conflicts must remain visible: the comparison does not establish that the second text is a later enacted revision.

Automation safeguards differ between the retained texts · The first document expressly excludes personal-data capture and intrusion into member networks, acknowledges limits to objective automation, and requires staff verification of possible non-compliance. The second omits those express safeguards from its proposal text; its staff assessment separately raises privacy and human-assessment concerns. Given the conflicting draft labels, this is not evidence that safeguards were later repealed.

Staff escalation and published procedures are described differently · The first text sends notices and reminders to both members and staff when possible non-compliance is detected. The second sends member notices on detected non-compliance, reserves staff notifications for persistence, and asks staff to define the persistence period and publish a fair procedure. These are differences in proposed workflow, not proof of confirmed member violations.

The second text includes an exceptional-circumstances clause · The second proposal expressly allows board special measures following staff assessment for essential regional Internet infrastructure, disasters or political instability. The first has no equivalent exception clause. The appended assessment criticises the breadth and undefined terms; its criticism is an assessment opinion, not a binding ruling on the clause.

Illustrative recovery procedures are replaced by open procedural delegation · The first document’s appendix illustrates repeated violations, notice periods and resource recovery steps; those examples are not automatic sanctions or evidence of action against a member. The second omits that appendix and instead asks staff to define specific rules for withholding, revocation or closure. Its assessment raises due-process concerns about leaving essential details undefined.

A historical staff assessment is attached to the second capture · The second capture includes the 23 June 2026 Draft 1 assessment covering systems, staffing, privacy, contract authority and procedural fairness, with recommendations for monitoring-focused wording and phased operations. The first is a September Draft 2 proposal without that appended assessment. Presence in the second capture does not make the June opinions current findings on Draft 2 or prove implementation.

Draft 1 page archived with a dated successor notice · The later capture marks this Draft 1 page archived and states that Draft 2 superseded it on 25 September 2026. The proposal body and existing impact-assessment text are otherwise unchanged in this pair; the new notice clarifies that the assessment belongs to the archived draft. This documents a page-status and reference update, not the substantive changes in Draft 2 or its adoption. The retained page still says Version 3.0 alongside the Draft 1 identifier, so that inconsistent label cannot establish a new policy revision.