This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Malcolm Hutty
malcolm at linx.net
Fri Mar 16 10:28:26 CET 2018
On 16/03/2018 08:59, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> Nothing, and I didn't state that it was. The problem is that, once accepted,
>> the implementation is out of the hands of this community or indeed
>> everyone bar the NCC Board. They can make it as onerous and oppressive as
>> they want.
> Ah, ok, my apologies. So, because I'd like to be clear here, you are objecting to this proposal on the basis of something that may or may not happen in the future?
>
Brian,
As a matter of principle I must object to that as a completely unfair
mischaracterisation of what Sascha just said.
To object to a proposal "on the basis of something that may or may not
happen in the future" makes it sound speculative, and thus unreasonable.
To object to a proposal on the basis that it *authorises* something
undesirable to happen is perfectly reasonable; such an objection is on
the basis that the measure before us would transfer the decision as to
whether that thing should happen from us to (in this case) the NCC.
That's something that is happening now, not something in the future.
You may disagree with Sascha as to whether 2017-02 does in fact
authorise the NCC to do something undesirable, but it's not fair to rule
out his concerns merely because the supposedly undesirable outcome is
only authorised rather than required.
I think it really important that we recognise that when authorising the
NCC to act, it is a legitimate objection to say that we wouldn't want
them to exercise that authority in a particular way, and the scope of
what is authorised ought to be limited in some way. I am far more
concerned about that as a principle than I am about the outcome for this
proposal in particular.
Kind Regards,
Malcolm.
--
Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd
Monument Place, 24 Monument Street London EC3R 8AJ
Company Registered in England No. 3137929
Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Decision on Proposal 2017-02
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]