[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 ]
ox
andre at ox.co.za
Sat Mar 17 09:53:55 CET 2018
On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:43:45 +0100 Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Reading comments like *this* as an argument *for* the proposal makes > me wonder if I should reconsider being neutral about it. > What Malcolm said is something that carefully needs to be considered: > what is the real goal to be achieved, and does this proposal help in > any way to get there? If *not*, extra measures that use up resources > and could have unforeseen consequences, should not be implemented. > What Sasha said is also something that carefully needs to be > considered, and not just waved away as "he's just being > irresponsible". > To ask you: in which ways will this proposal help the internet make > less of a "shit hole"? Those that care already have working abuse > contacts, those that care not will find ways to fulfill the letter of > the policy, and still care not. I am not the American president and I actually object to the common use of the words "Shit Hole" as much as I object to women being grabbed by the pussy by powerful men, I guess. maybe I am just too conservative, maybe I am an assh*le myself, I do not know. Either way, I do choose to take offense. To answer the question though: This proposal does make the world a better place. If a resource holder wishes to be allocated scarce public resources such a resource holder should also be responsible about the operations of such scarce public resources. Andre
- 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 ]