Moin,
On Wed, Nov 01, 2023 at 02:37:27PM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Sure, but that's a membership decision and not a community decision.
this perceived disconnect is a re-occuring scheme and therefore
deserves a bit more thought, albeit not in this WG but likely
in NCC Services and/or Address Po
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:03:37PM +0300, Töma Gavrichenkov wrote:
> > sorry, we have no policy to kick off dirty spammer from elections.
> >
>
> I doubt that. Clearly, a person cannot qualify as a candidate right after
> a massive RIPE database ToU violation.
has anyone thought of just giving
Jordi,
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 04:31:24PM +, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via
anti-abuse-wg wrote:
> If you're acting in good faith you do not need the validation. So other
> people do not need to validate your abuse contact.
> It just works. If you're acting in bad faith then additional va
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 02:20:46PM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2019-04
>
> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
> four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to
> the proposer.
Carlos, all,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 10:13:56PM +0100, Carlos Friaças via anti-abuse-wg
wrote:
> > I also believe that certains occurences of "hijacking" constitute
> > unfriendly action, likely involving violation of crominal codes.
>
> Yes, however, jurisdictions (and lack of laws in some of
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2019-03, "BGP Hijacking is a RIPE Policy
> Violation", is now available for discussion.
I have read the proposal version 1.0 as published on 13 March.
I believe that the proposers try to act with the be
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 01:21:44PM +0200, Mirjam Kuehne wrote:
> https://labs.ripe.net/Members/angela_dallara/how-we-will-be-validating-abuse-c
thanks for designing and sharing this sensible approach. Please allow a few
questions (maybe for the WG presentation):
o "We will start with a verifica
Brian,
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:43:59AM +0200, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the
> community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some
> time ago!
questionable.
> Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in
On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:46:45AM +0100, denis wrote:
> In these days of political interest in how the internet is 'managed' the
> RIRs need to do more than 'just maintain an accurate registry'. The
indeed. The community should be careful to maintain and improve the
credibility and legitimacy
Dear WG,
I have read the document and would like to thank the authors
for their work. Some of my observations match and support
points already raised by Gilles:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 03:39:57PM +0200, Gilles Massen wrote:
> This is a very interesting document, and a very nice thing to have
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
