[anti-abuse-wg] Enabling community self-help?

Hi Shane

First, for SOCA's proposal  - here you go.
http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/03/12/five-cs-whois-validation-model

Let us put it this way.  There's nothing that stops you or RIPE NCC or
anyone else from creating such a "community resource"

It would not be the brightest idea in the world to treat that as a
viable alternative for action to prevent and revoke bogus allocations,
and wash your hands off the matter.

Personally speaking, I find it rather amusing when people from an
organization have a different set of opinions in one community,
whereas their counterparts from other parts (say the security side
rather than the IP engg side) of the organization have an entirely
different set of opinions in a totally different community.

Sure there's absolutely nothing wrong in having and holding different
opinions, but when it translates to entirely different kinds of policy
.. and when it also translates to one community being not entirely
happy with the policy decisions coming from the other community ..

It would be an interesting thought experiment to have most of the RIPE
NCC members most supportive of the "we are not the document police"
idea turn up at, say, a MAAWG meeting, while their counterparts who
usually go to MAAWG come to a RIPE meeting [and yes, participate in
the mailing lists of those communities during the months that lead up
to the meeting].  Especially when there are several key proposals on
whois, IP allocation and vetting policies etc on the agenda  ..

Do remember that the "community" in both cases, RIPE and MAAWG, is
basically individuals in their capacity as representatives of an
organization such as a broadband carrier, datacenter, or say ISC in
your case.  So it is no longer a question of personal opinion - it is
a question of deciding on policies that, at times, severely affect
your colleagues from other parts of your organization.

--srs

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org> wrote:
>
>
> I think that it is fair that you have other goals, but perhaps you can
> refrain from commenting further on this proposal so that people who
> might find it useful can discuss it? Thanks.



-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)