[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] RIPE 65 Draft Agenda
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrew Bonar
ABonar at Emailvision.com
Mon Aug 20 13:03:09 CEST 2012
Not currently members of M3AAWG however Emailvision (6bn + email messages per month) also supports this proposal +1 from me personally best Andrew Bonar Deliverability Director Emailvision -----Original Message----- From: anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:anti-abuse-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: 20 August 2012 13:01 To: Wout de Natris Cc: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16 +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] RIPE 65 Draft Agenda
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]