[anti-abuse-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)

Hi Sander,

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 11:44:24PM +0100, Sander Steffann wrote:

>I didn't really expect everyone to agree to the current text. But I did
>not expect such language and comparisons on this list, and it shocked
>me. As one of the proposers I ask you to please participate in a
>constructive discussion here to see what is possible and desirable and
>what is not.

if you were under the impression I was attacking you personally, I
apologize, that was not my intent. I am quite alarmed by the proposal
though, and I don't think my comparisons are that off either,
considering the area of resource management having become a lot more
competitive, as opposed to, co-operative since ipv4 depletion.

as for what is possible, I've thought more on it and have formend the
opinion that the only thing out of it, I could accept, is publication
of the fects if a complaint was upheld *and* resources removed for
cause.

The reason being that RIPE policy is often ambiguous and contradictory,
so a policy violation might simply be the result of a
mis-interpretation, difference of opinion or bureaucratic slip-up.
Dragging that into the court of public opinion serves nobody, except
perhaps a malicious complainant.

cheers,
Sascha Luck

>
>Thank you, Sander
>