[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16

Brian,

>From my side a full support for the proposal. Without any obligations the proposal may never work as foreseen.

And I would like to stress that Jerry Upton wrote on behalf of M3AAWG and in function as director, so representing the M3AAWG members. Looking at who those members are, I venture to see this as a very large support on behalf of the proposal.

Best,

Wout

> From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net
> Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:00:02 +0200
> 
> Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
> 	anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. 2011-06 Move to Last Call (Abuse Contact Management in the
>       RIPE NCC Database) (Brian Nisbet)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:55:07 +0100
> From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
> Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] 2011-06 Move to Last Call (Abuse Contact
> 	Management in the RIPE NCC Database)
> To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
> Message-ID: <5031ED5B.6090905 at heanet.ie>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Colleagues,
> 
> RIPE Proposal 2011-06 (Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE NCC 
> Database) has reached the end of its extended Review Phase and a 
> decision must now be made regarding the next steps. I (Tobias, as the 
> main proposer, has, as agreed & discussed stepped back from his co-chair 
> duties on this one) have gone through the various mails and discussions 
> from the the review phase, a short summary of which is below.
> 
> I feel that the main thrust of the discussion on 2011-06 gave support to 
> the proposal.
> 
> The initial discussion phase lead to a redrafting of the proposal and 
> some questions over the mandatory nature of the attribute and the future 
> of the IRTs. It was also clarified that while there may be further 
> output from the ACM-TF and/or further proposals in this space, 2011-06 
> was considered to be standalone.
> 
> The second version was published on 16th April 2012, addressing, I 
> believe, a number of points raised during the initial discussion phase. 
> Some objections remained, such as opinions on the mandatory nature of 
> the object and the lack of a wider plan.
> 
> In May 2012 it was decided to go ahead and move the proposal to Review 
> Phase, during which the RIPE NCC presented their impact analysis. This 
> gave rise to discussion regarding the future of the IRT object. I 
> believe that it has been clarified that while the NCC will put plans in 
> place to deal with the decommissioning of the IRT object, they will, of 
> course, only do so if the community proposes this. They have 
> acknowledged that 2011-06 does not contain this proposal and so no 
> action regarding the IRT object will be taken on foot of this proposal. 
> I believe that the wider IRT community are happy with this.
> 
> There was relatively little discussion during Review Phase, so it was 
> extended for a further four weeks. During this time a number of 
> objections were restated (mandatory nature and data protection issues) 
> and discussed and a few new expressions of support were made.
> 
> Overall it appears that there are three sustained objections to the 
> proposal and twelve clear expressions of support. The opinion of some 
> members of the list (who have commented) is unclear, however I feel 
> there is sufficient consensus to move this proposal to Last Call.
> 
> Emilio will made the formal announcement from the RIPE NCC PDO.
> 
> If you disagree with this interpretation, please let me know.
> 
> Brian
> Co-Chair, Anti-Abuse WG
> 
> 
> 
> End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 16
> *********************************************
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20120820/17a4d326/attachment.html>