[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 ]
Brian Nisbet
brian.nisbet at heanet.ie
Mon Jan 22 17:47:13 CET 2018
On 22/01/2018 16:07, Nick Hilliard wrote: > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via anti-abuse-wg wrote: >> I agree that exaggeration is not useful, and probably we need to have >> several clear attempts before turning down a contract, BUT, if we are >> talking about proportionality, there are MANY cases of abuses where >> the responsible LIRs aren't responding at all, and this means a very >> big harm to the networks being abused. Is that proportional? > > We're not discussing perpetration of abuse; we're discussing whether > 2017-02 is fit for purpose. This is indeed the case, whatever opinions of that may be. Thanks, Brian Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG
- 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 ]