"Maybe when policy is violated, multiple times (more than once) and alsothen notice by additional communication (phone?) and if that also failsthen loss of resource is reasonable."This is too unfair on RIPE and no body (RIPE included) has enough resources to police something that should be the resp
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:20:41 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> "The objective of this proposal is not to devise a detailed
> validation procedure. The RIPE NCC is best placed to assess the
> technical challenges and the financial and human resources
> necessary to conduct validation tests in the
On 22/01/2018 15:09, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> I believe the NCC have stated very clearly how incredibly unlikely
>> deregistration of resources would be and I honestly don't believe the
>> exaggeration for emphasis or otherwise is useful.
>
> this seems to be a statement that
On 22/01/2018 16:07, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
>> I agree that exaggeration is not useful, and probably we need to have
>> several clear attempts before turning down a contract, BUT, if we are
>> talking about proportionality, there are MANY cases of abus
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:20:41PM +, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
it. (However, since I'm not sure the implementation process
cannot just change without my consent, I still oppose it on this
point, too)
Actually, a question for the chairs on the PDP: Is the
implentation plan a part of the propo
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:45:43PM +0200, ox wrote:
Have I made myself sufficiently clear?
Not really.
Right. I will then re-iterate all of my arguments including the
ones against v1.
1) The proposal states:
"Improving the trust and safety of the IP address space is a
priority for the RIPE
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> I agree that exaggeration is not useful, and probably we need to have
> several clear attempts before turning down a contract, BUT, if we are
> talking about proportionality, there are MANY cases of abuses where
> the responsible LIRs aren't respondin
I agree that exaggeration is not useful, and probably we need to have several
clear attempts before turning down a contract, BUT, if we are talking about
proportionality, there are MANY cases of abuses where the responsible LIRs
aren't responding at all, and this means a very big harm to the net
Brian Nisbet wrote:
> I believe the NCC have stated very clearly how incredibly unlikely
> deregistration of resources would be and I honestly don't believe the
> exaggeration for emphasis or otherwise is useful.
this seems to be a statement that just because an extreme policy
compliance enforceme
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:26:47 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:05PM +0200, ox wrote:
> >so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process -
> >if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute
> >an improvement, please do so Sascha?
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:05PM +0200, ox wrote:
so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process -
if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute an
improvement, please do so Sascha?
OK, so for the avoidance of doubt among the trolls and the rules
law
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:48:19 +
"Sascha Luck [ml]" wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:42:09PM +0200, ox wrote:
> >I have not seen any objections to the process of emailing a alpha
> >numeric number to abuse-c and then having that number entered into a
> >website (after solving a capcha)
> >Thi
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:42:09PM +0200, ox wrote:
I have not seen any objections to the process of emailing a alpha
numeric number to abuse-c and then having that number entered into a
website (after solving a capcha)
This would solve many problems as it would mean that the abuse-c exists
and i
Hi,
sorry, Brian, i posted before receiving your email :)
just to get back on topic then:
I have not seen any objections to the process of emailing a alpha
numeric number to abuse-c and then having that number entered into a
website (after solving a capcha)
This would solve many problems as it
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:19:26 +0100
Gert Doering wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:25:12AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> > I have no problem with abuse-c validation, either via ARC, or the
> > mechanism proposed in this policy, and probably not via a range of
> > other mechanisms either. But thr
Folks,
On 22/01/2018 13:19, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:25:12AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> I have no problem with abuse-c validation, either via ARC, or the
>> mechanism proposed in this policy, and probably not via a range of other
>> mechanisms either. But thre
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:25:12AM +, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> I have no problem with abuse-c validation, either via ARC, or the
> mechanism proposed in this policy, and probably not via a range of other
> mechanisms either. But threatening to terminate the right of an
> organisation to con
Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Well, this is where we keep on coming back to in this conversation.
> There are clearly those who wish for the validation to go much further
> and others who do not wish it to happen at all. Threading that line is
> proving tricky. I, personally, do not see how the ARC could s
Nick,
On 19/01/2018 17:26, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> Given the NCC have repeatedly said that the ARC is not a suitable way to
>> validate the abuse contact and have proposed an alternative method,
>> supported by the ARC process, do you have any comment on the actually
>> propo
19 matches
Mail list logo
