This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal(Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sander Steffann
sander at steffann.nl
Mon Feb 18 15:53:32 CET 2013
Hi Sascha, > "policy violation" is likely to catch some honest mistakes or changed > circumstances. I'd be in favour of publishing this only if the resources > were reclaimed because of a conscious act (fraudulent registration, > falsified (as opposed to merely incorrect) information) The file lists recources returned to the NCC, so the file only lists policy violations if they lead to reclaiming the address space. (It only lists returned resources, and it will only mention a policy violation if that is the reason behind reclaiming them) I think it already matches what you say. If not: please explain what you want to see changed. Cheers, Sander
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal (Openness about Policy Violations)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] [ncc-services-wg] 2013-01 New Policy Proposal(Openness about Policy Violations)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]