[anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ronald F. Guilmette
rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Sep 29 21:18:15 CEST 2010
In message <4CA25A63.3090608 at abusix.com>, Tobias Knecht <tk at abusix.com> wrote: >> So, ah, maybe the Right Place To Start would be for somebody (perhaps >> even this working group?) to propose at least some sort of a policy >> (e.g. on hijacked ASNs and/or address blocks) for RIPE's consideration (?) >> >> I do agree that in the absence of any policy to even investigate, a web >> form for submissions isn't going to help a lot. > >I have done a policy proposal for APNIC which was discussed in the last >meeting, but didn't find consensus. See more about this here: >http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-084 That proposal seems quite reasonable. What were the objections? Is it appropriate to assume that the main objections were to this part? - After the 60-day period has passed, if the object owner has not verified their object details, APNIC will add the ranges of resources maintained by the non-responsive object owner to the publicly available list of resources described in 4.5.1 below. Regards, rfg
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]