[anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gilles Massen
gilles.massen at restena.lu
Thu May 26 10:15:27 CEST 2016
Brian, I beg to differ - the argument is on scope. Even if my comments apply to abuse-c as a whole, they are still valid for the more narrow legacy space, and I see no reason to impose a bad idea to more people for the sake of uniformity. Especially not to a community that has been granted extensive exemptions from RIPE policies. (this said, I also agree with Sascha's concerns) Best, Gilles On 26/05/16 09:43, Brian Nisbet wrote: > Gilles, > > Thanks for the contribution, but I would like to remind you and the > community that abuse-c is a reality, that policy reached consensus some > time ago! > > Can we please frame the discussion on this policy in that context, > rather than referring to points outside of that scope? > > Thanks, > > Brian > > Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager > HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network > 1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1 > Registered in Ireland, no 275301 tel: +35316609040 > web: http://www.heanet.ie/ > > Gilles Massen wrote on 25/05/2016 21:59: >> Hi, >> >> While I do agree with the rationale in "It will benefit the entire >> Internet community to have better quality abuse contact data", I don't >> believe that the policy text provides any help towards that goal, quite >> the contrary. >> >> Specifically: forcing people to add an abuse-c as a matter of ticking a >> checkbox leads to not-working or ignored abuse email boxes. And I rather >> have no abuse-c than an ignored one - it is a clear signal and leads to >> much better use of a reporters time. >> >> Make sure that people need to make an informed choice by not providing >> an abuse-c, but dot not force. >> >> So I keep opposing the policy. >> >> best, >> Gilles Massen >> > -- Fondation RESTENA - DNS-LU 2, avenue de l'Université LU-4365 Esch-sur-Alzette tel: +352.4244091 fax: +352.422473
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] 2016-01 Discussion Period Extended Until 21 June 2016 (Include Legacy Internet Resource Holders in the Abuse-c Policy)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]