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/[email protected]/
[anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Sat Nov 8 18:40:31 CET 2014
Hi, On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 12:03:57AM +0000, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Throwing Richard Cox out of a wg vice chair role in an AOB session where > lots of regulars from other parts of the ripe meeting just happened to > wander in happened too, not too long back, so please don't remind me about > ACTA. > > As for the policy proposal I assume whoever makes it will make it in public > and with drafts posted here so you're entirely free not to vote for it. > > But I doubt you or anyone else can ask to stop any proposal at all being > placed on the agenda. Whether or not it gets consensus is a different next > step. Well, actually the chair *is* free to reject a formal(!) policy proposal if it better fits into another WG, and the other chair is happy to take it - you know, there's a well-defined formal policy development process, and "WG chair accepts proposal" is one of the first steps... Anyway, I'm not sure I agree or disagree with Sascha - it affects address policy (which covers AS numbers), OTOH, the anti-abuse WG is free to come to consensus and send over messages to other working groups. If it happens in AP, you have the "policy community" scrutiny it, but they might not fully understand the underlying abuse issues - so input would be needed to demonstrate why this would be a necessary change. If it happens here, the abuse side of things is understood, but the secondary implications on "legitimate use cases" might not be (see the question about "why can an AS number be assigned to an entity that is not actually announcing any own space"). But then, WG chairs have been overheard to talk to each other, so WGs can coordinate closely if useful. Gert Doering -- member of the abuse-wg, chair of the AP WG -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 811 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20141108/1661be88/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijack Factory: AS201640 / AS200002
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]