Hi, On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 05:54:04PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
I will discuss this here as I do not accept the Anti-Abuse WG as a forum for this proposal. For one thing, this proposal affects every ripedb user - in fact, as this entails changes to how the NCC provides services, the services-wg would be an even better venue. For another, given the "population" and culture of "debate" on the AAWG, any "consensus" reached there would be so worthless as to be farcical. (If anyone wants amplification on this, https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/ provides ample evidence.
Sascha, I sympathize with you on this, but this is not how the PDP works - a policy proposal has to be "anchored" on one working group (theoretically a "plenary" proposal would be possible, but I'm not sure how the mechanics of that would work out). The WG chairs usually speak to each other beforehand and see where it would fit "best" if multiple WGs are concerned - and then one WG takes it, and the other is sent a HEADS UP notice so folks not usually on the proposal's WG mailing list can make themselves heard. As we say over in APWG "if it's not on the list, it has not happened" - and this is valid here as well: if you oppose the proposal, please make yourself heard on the anti-abuse WG list. Everything else is just "noise in the hallway". Even if you and I know it could lead to insults of the sort "who opposes this proposal is really joining forces with spammers!"... (I haven't decided myself whether I think this is useful or not, but will make myself heard over there) Gert Doering -- Network citizen with some experience in policy making mechanics... -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279