[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Mon Aug 20 13:00:38 CEST 2012
+1 to what Wout said. Based on the M3AAWG endorsement of this proposal, it has support from the largest ISPs and messaging providers from around the world. +1 to the proposal from me personally. --srs On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Wout de Natris <denatrisconsult at hotmail.nl> wrote: > Brian, > > From my side a full support for the proposal. Without any obligations the > proposal may never work as foreseen. > > And I would like to stress that Jerry Upton wrote on behalf of M3AAWG and in > function as director, so representing the M3AAWG members. Looking at who > those members are, I venture to see this as a very large support on behalf > of the proposal. > > Best, > > Wout > >> From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net >> Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16 >> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net >> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:00:02 +0200 >> >> Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to >> anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. 2011-06 Move to Last Call (Abuse Contact Management in the >> RIPE NCC Database) (Brian Nisbet) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:55:07 +0100 >> From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> >> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Move to Last Call (Abuse Contact >> Management in the RIPE NCC Database) >> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net >> Message-ID: <5031ED5B.6090905 at heanet.ie> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed >> >> Colleagues, >> >> RIPE Proposal 2011-06 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC >> Database) has reached the end of its extended Review Phase and a >> decision must now be made regarding the next steps. I (Tobias, as the >> main proposer, has, as agreed & discussed stepped back from his co-chair >> duties on this one) have gone through the various mails and discussions >> from the the review phase, a short summary of which is below. >> >> I feel that the main thrust of the discussion on 2011-06 gave support to >> the proposal. >> >> The initial discussion phase lead to a redrafting of the proposal and >> some questions over the mandatory nature of the attribute and the future >> of the IRTs. It was also clarified that while there may be further >> output from the ACM-TF and/or further proposals in this space, 2011-06 >> was considered to be standalone. >> >> The second version was published on 16th April 2012, addressing, I >> believe, a number of points raised during the initial discussion phase. >> Some objections remained, such as opinions on the mandatory nature of >> the object and the lack of a wider plan. >> >> In May 2012 it was decided to go ahead and move the proposal to Review >> Phase, during which the RIPE NCC presented their impact analysis. This >> gave rise to discussion regarding the future of the IRT object. I >> believe that it has been clarified that while the NCC will put plans in >> place to deal with the decommissioning of the IRT object, they will, of >> course, only do so if the community proposes this. They have >> acknowledged that 2011-06 does not contain this proposal and so no >> action regarding the IRT object will be taken on foot of this proposal. >> I believe that the wider IRT community are happy with this. >> >> There was relatively little discussion during Review Phase, so it was >> extended for a further four weeks. During this time a number of >> objections were restated (mandatory nature and data protection issues) >> and discussed and a few new expressions of support were made. >> >> Overall it appears that there are three sustained objections to the >> proposal and twelve clear expressions of support. The opinion of some >> members of the list (who have commented) is unclear, however I feel >> there is sufficient consensus to move this proposal to Last Call. >> >> Emilio will made the formal announcement from the RIPE NCC PDO. >> >> If you disagree with this interpretation, please let me know. >> >> Brian >> Co-Chair, Anti-Abuse WG >> >> >> >> End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16 >> ********************************************* -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]