[anti-abuse-wg] Reporting Fraud

In message <4CA25A63.3090608 at abusix.com>, Tobias Knecht <tk at abusix.com> wrote:

>> So, ah, maybe the Right Place To Start would be for somebody (perhaps
>> even this working group?) to propose at least some sort of a policy
>> (e.g. on hijacked ASNs and/or address blocks) for RIPE's consideration (?)
>>
>> I do agree that in the absence of any policy to even investigate, a web
>> form for submissions isn't going to help a lot.
>
>I have done a policy proposal for APNIC which was discussed in the last
>meeting, but didn't find consensus. See more about this here:
>http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-084

That proposal seems quite reasonable.  What were the objections?

Is it appropriate to assume that the main objections were to this part?

    - After the 60-day period has passed, if the object owner has not
      verified their object details, APNIC will add the ranges of
      resources maintained by the non-responsive object owner to the
      publicly available list of resources described in 4.5.1 below.
  

Regards,
rfg