Dear colleagues, I want to formally confirm and underline my contributions to discussions @RIPE72: the slight softening of the newer version of proposal 2016-01 does not substantially resolve the concerns I raised in my objection to the earlier version. So I uphold my objection for the new version Subject: objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2016 19:38:10 +0100 Message-id: <11461.1456684690@x59.NIC.DTAG.DE>
I object to passing the policy as proposed. There is no serious need for the policy, and at this time and under current circumstance it would actually be harmful. I believe that the supposed good intentions would be better served by other actions, and the policy focussing on enforcement is ill advised.
For the verbose detailled arguments and suggestions I refer to that old message. I note that other parties have raised additional concerns - those may fall under the "harmful" clause above, but I'm not going to argue in detail on those. Some of the discussion @RIPE72 did confirm what I wrote in the second paragraph of my objection message - as an attempt at constructive suggestions:
I understand that the current implementation of the RIPE database allows legacy holders to enter abuse-c attributes for their legacy resources ... No PDP is needed to send friendly invitations to legacy holders to populate their data objects with abuse-c information; I'm sure asking the RIPE NCC to do this would not create an undue burden or serious problem.
Sadly I did not notice any followup on this yet. Thanks for your attention and consideration. Ruediger Volk