[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[Lamiaa Chnayti]

Hi Jordi,

I am very disappointed with what you are doing. There are a vast amount of
significant objections that clearly state this policy is a no-go.

And it is not only a no-go here, but you have also been clearly told so in
RIPE as well for the same policy. Why are you not questioning the decision
of the RIPE working group on the same policy and with very similar major
objections?

A simple google would find you the following results (
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2020-May/013189.html),
and they are all coming from veterans of the RIPE community:

“Members who "care" will probably deal with issues and those who don't care
won't start caring, so I'm struggling to see what value this brings”

 Mr Michele Neylon
 Blacknight Solutions


“Why does this need to be a policy?  This is an operational implementation
thing, not a strategic direction issue.”

Nick Hilliard


“I’m even more confused and struggling to understand how this is relevant
to the AP WG. Could you please explain?

First of all, this dashboard thing is an operational service matter. Please
clarify why you think it needs to be a policy issue.

Next, if you wanted to know if the NCC is considering this dashboard idea,
you could simply have asked them. Or raised the matter in the NCC Services
WG. Have you done either of those things? If so, what was the response?”

Jim Reid

Just to quote a few.

People have been repeatedly telling you multiple times: this is not a good
policy, and you counter-arguing with the chair and saying you have
addressed those concerns is not really a way to work constructively.

Regards,

Lamiaa




Le mer. 30 sept. 2020 à 16:05, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> a
écrit :


> Hello Chloe, would you support the same reasoning for the Resource

> Transfer Policy as well ?

>

> Regards

> Fernando

> On 30/09/2020 11:53, Chloe Kung wrote:

>

> Hi Jaco,

>

>

>

> I don’t see why you cannot find valid objections and hence think this

> proposal should be in the last call. I agree with Gaby. The fact that many

> of us are still discussing the matter and object the proposal in all

> different reasons, is the prove of there is no reaching rough consensus.

> And so we should not rush it into last call just because some think it’s

> doing good or all problems have been taken care of.

>

>

>

> Like for objection d; no proper definition of the term Abuse, there is

> still a need to address on it. Yes the proposal is about “building” abuse

> contact, but just like what Jordi has said, “ The policy only needs to

> state what the staff should evaluate and thus, what members should do”, if

> the definition of the word/ act of Abuse is not clear, how can the staff

> evaluate such action then? Let's say if they interpret those cases in their

> own different ways, it will not be fair to any of the parties nor would it

> be something we want I suppose. And there are high chance of having

> mis-interpretation too!

>

>

>

> Best,

>

> Chloe

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200930/fcf8704c/attachment-0001.html>