[anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
aawg at c4inet.net
Mon Jan 22 15:26:47 CET 2018
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:56:05PM +0200, ox wrote: >so, still, there has been no objections to the verification process - >if you have an objection to the process or would like to contribute an >improvement, please do so Sascha? OK, so for the avoidance of doubt among the trolls and the rules lawyers: 1) I object to the verification process proposals as floated on this list and i 2) I stand by my interpretation of the IA as stating that the NCC has no mandate to impose arbitrary hoops on members to jump through. Have I made myself sufficiently clear? On a further note, there is a discussion in the DB-WG with the goal of enabling delegation of more specific abuse-c for assigned or sub-allocated resources. The verification process, if implemented, should take care not to conflict with this. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [policy-announce] 2017-02 Review Phase (Regular abuse-c Validation)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]