[rpd] Decisions ... Abuse contact

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ]

The policy compliance in RIPE was just an idea, still “under construction”. Note the if you only provide a link you are missing the people that is in favor of it.

 

RIPE *already has* an abuse-c policy. It is not yet the best (in my opinion) and I’m working in improving it, same I will do in ARIN, it is just a matter of time. I try to put as much of my time as I can, but I’ve limits, as you can guess.

 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 30/9/20 17:35, "Lamiaa Chnayti" <lamiaachnayti at gmail.com> escribió:

 

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 list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

_______________________________________________ RPD mailing list RPD at afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd 



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200930/edf8ea78/attachment.html>