[anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002

On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:34:56PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
>there (formal policy proposal in anti-abuse?).

NO. Please NO.

put any such proposals in apwg, where they belong. 
I cannot be that address policy that affects *every* member is
made on a mailing list that few people read (largely due to the
noise and regular incoherent ranting).

I would consider any "consensus" reached in this way invalid.
It's the equivalent of approving ACTA at 2am in the Fisheries
Commission session (yup, that happened)

I would also note that the only WG whose charter explicitly
permits policy-making is address-policy and I think that was the
intention. (ergo the above goes for any other "special interest"
WG as well. 

>OTOH, the existing contracts people need to sign *do* contain clauses
>that resource holders will abide "all RIPE policies" (or such), so

Indeed and penalties for non-compliance exist.

rgds,
Sascha Luck