You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > RIPE Forum
RIPE Forum v1.4.2

Anti-Abuse Working Group

Threaded
Collapse

[anti-abuse-wg] Proposal 2022-01

Ronald F. Guilmette

2022-06-23 10:44:05 CET

Just curious... How many of you folks have actually read sections 4.0, 5.0,
and 6.0 of this pending proposal from the Database Working Group?

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01

I suspect that many of you are going to want to read those sections before
you have your memberships revoked for non-compliance.


Regards,
rfg

User Image

Carlos Friacas

2022-06-23 11:48:38 CET

Hi, please see inline.


On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:

> Just curious... How many of you folks have actually read sections 4.0, 5.0,
> and 6.0 of this pending proposal from the Database Working Group?

Read it just now. :-)


> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01
>
> I suspect that many of you are going to want to read those sections before
> you have your memberships revoked for non-compliance.

I can't read any details about membership revokation. Also i don't see it 
as implicit.

The three sections make perfect sense to me. In section 6.0, if i 
understood correctly this won't apply to legacy resources which are still 
out of any contractual relationship -- which also seems fine.


Regards,
Carlos


> Regards,
> rfg
>
> -- 
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
>

Ronald F. Guilmette

2022-06-24 00:56:48 CET

In message <alpine.LRH.2.21.2206231045180.15332 _at_ gauntlet.corp.fccn _dot_ pt>, 
 =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Carlos_Fria=E7as?= <cfriacas _at_ fccn _dot_ pt> wrote:

>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2022-01
>>
>> I suspect that many of you are going to want to read those sections before
>> you have your memberships revoked for non-compliance.
>
>I can't read any details about membership revokation. Also i don't see it 
>as implicit.

Well, I have been asking for various policies that would place some
restrictions on member conduct (in other context) for quite some
years now, and every time I have asked about such things, either in this
region (RIPE) or ibn other regions I have always been told "Sorry, no,
we can't do that because we have no enforcement mechanism and we have
no way to disipline members."

Any yet here we have a proposal that clearly intend to -force- members to
put accurate information into their WHOIS records.  This raises the obvious
question:  How?  How will members be forced into this, when it has previously
been asserted (in other contexts) that there never has been (and never will
be) any way to force members to do anything OTHER THAN to pay their RIPE
dues?

>The three sections make perfect sense to me. In section 6.0, if i 
>understood correctly this won't apply to legacy resources which are still 
>out of any contractual relationship -- which also seems fine.

That's not the way that *I* read it.


Regards,
rfg