[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 14:48:38 +0000
"Sascha Luck [ml]" <aawg at c4inet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:59:55AM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
> >Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are
> >objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may
> >not happen in the future?  
> 
> If you want to be uncharitable, yes. However, this is the *last*
> point at which it is even *possible* for me to object to what I
> see as a dangerous slippy slope. 
> 
actually, no.

There are two things in your original statement which are being
conveniently ignored.

(1) You agreed that nothing about the suggested implementation was
either onerous or oppressive.  You then added that once it is accepted
then the NCC board may implement it as they wish. In fact, you said:
"They can make it as onerous and oppressive as they want." 

This statement is simply ignoring that the NCC board is implementing
that which you have already stated is neither onerous or oppressive.

(2) You then pointed out the "General Tenor" of this discussion and
then stated that 2017-02 will not be the end of it, I presume the same
"slippery slope" you are referring to above.

So, it is not so uncharitable to point out that you are objecting to
something that may or may not happen in the future.

It is this point (2) of yours that is your real objection and that
objection is simply an objection because you can object.

> >Ok, but do you have any issues with 2017-02 as written, bearing in
> >mind what Marco and myself have already said about the policies
> >around non-adherence to RIPE policies?
> >  
> 
> Yes, it adds another thing to an already long list of things that
> can trigger a monopoly provider to deny service to its
> (involuntary) customers. 
> 
You conveniently neglect to mention that the resources that these
"customers" have - belongs to everyone - and not to the "customers"

In truth, they are not customers at all, but all/everyone are
"custodians" of public resources.

> If you're determined to manufacture consensus by declaring an
> entire class of objections, to whit: medium to long term
> consequences of such a proposal, out of bounds; there is not much
> I can do. The record will show I've made my stand and history
> shall judge.
> 

there is no manufactured consensus, I doubt if ever all the cats in this
herd have all agreed on anything.

and the cat herder has simply declared the obvious, that there is a
general consensus.

Regards

Andre